Take the Narrative Wounding Challenge.

[billd91]

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)

I think what people are seeing isn't a problem with primal magic or martial magic, per se, as long as they are defined as magic and not just some dramatic, narrative tool to get Rocky up off the mats. Magic includes its own justification... as long as it is clearly defined as such.

In the case of healing surges in general, not just the ones that can be triggered by paladins laying on hands, clerics or shamans working their magic, part of the problem is their lack of definition. What are they? Is it a magical ability that is clearly beyond the reach of normals and thus easily justifies achieving results beyond those of normals to a wide range of players' abilities to suspend their disbelief or is it simply a character's awesomeness or grit?

 

[NewJeffCT]

In the case of healing surges in general, not just the ones that can be triggered by paladins laying on hands, clerics or shamans working their magic, part of the problem is their lack of definition. What are they? Is it a magical ability that is clearly beyond the reach of normals and thus easily justifies achieving results beyond those of normals to a wide range of players' abilities to suspend their disbelief or is it simply a character's awesomeness or grit?

I think it is intentionally vaguely defined so each group can play it how they want.

 

[TwoSix]

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)

I would argue it's very specifically warlord healing, and second wind, that cause the most difficulty. I mean, maybe it's a coincidence that the only PHB1 class that didn't make it into HotF(L/K) is the warlord, and it got replaced with a magical healer.

Or maybe not.

 

[JamesonCourage]

[SNIP]

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.

We've gone back to the "realism" argument, which is one I said wasn't the issue to begin with. I mean, NewJeffCT gives you experience on a good post because it would make realistic sense for someone that's been injured that badly that many times to be messed up (but since they aren't, it's best to handwave most things). Then he posts something like:

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)

We're back to hearing:
"Second wind and Warlord powers make sense because it's heroic or epic, so they're okay"
and
"It doesn't make sense that a guy could get so messed up and keep going psychologically."

It's a little bit of a double standard, to me, but beyond that, it's missing the point. I've probably had 8-10 instances in the past year where long term wounds have altered the story in some significant way. It's allowed the setting to evolve while the party healed up, and during that time things happened that changed things in a significant way.

The narrative space being lost isn't description, it's narrative paths that can be explored or followed. You cannot have a long term wound that significantly alters the path the party follows in the game, and as it comes up often with my group, it is by no means a corner case. The party I currently run the game for has no healer in it (and this isn't the first time), and even in the example I gave in this thread, it was the cleric who was taken down (which means no magical healing). It's definitely applicable.

D&D may not be realistic, but that was never my complaint. Saying "combat is ridiculous anyways" doesn't address it. Neither does saying "well said" and then going on to post about how some mundane things "stand well beyond the capabilities of ordinary mortals."

That's kinda what I was getting at, actually. It's a fantasy game (as in the fantasy-genre), so it's not about realism. However, I'd like a common fantasy trope of a serious injury healing slowly be available within the game. I'm not trying to bash 4e as a whole, since I think it improves and opens up narrative options in some ways that 3.X restricted them. I'm saying that, in this area, the game has less room to accommodate potential narrative paths, and that bugs me.

Basically, on something as important as a PC dying or recovering, I don't want the designers to take Hussar's approach and go "eh, corner case in our opinion, so the rules don't need to support it there." No, a PC being gravely injured is something I find very narratively appealing, and I'd like to the core mechanics support it, not ignore it.

But that's just me. I understand people don't like it. I just think the arguments are missing the issue that Herremann was trying to point out: some people like the potential narrative paths available, and didn't like losing them. Yes, it's a play style thing. Yes, you can not enjoy that style, and that's genuinely fine with me. The thing is, this entire thread broke off from another thread where people were asked to voice the things they didn't like about healing surges, and it segued into this; it's just some people saying why they don't like it.

I'm not sure if I can be any more clear on it, so if there's questions on it, I can try to clarify, but I think this is about as straightforward as I can be. As always, play what you like

 

[Herremann the Wise]

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.

But the point is the difference between dropping into the negatives in 4e is mechanically different than dropping into the negatives in 3e. [and yes in my experience a character will drop into the negatives more often in 4e than 3e, but more characters seem to die in 3e than 4e.]

In both 3e and 4e, if a PC is hp-wise in the positives, they are still functioning at capacity. Even a fighter with 200hp knocked down to 1hp is functioning at capacity so any damage that they have taken is inconsequential enough not to affect them. As such scrapes, bruises and if "bloodied" in 4e, then the odd cut or splash of blood is appropriate too. The character is at capacity but "under pressure".

In 3e a character in the negatives has taken a major wound. Why? Because if completely untended the character mechanically speaking will much more than likely die (I mathematically described this upthread). As such, as DM I feel compelled to describe a potentially fatal injury and certainly not one that the PC can easily recover from. If magic heals the character, so be it but the mechanical foundation for describing a serious wound is already there.

In 4e the situation of a character going into the negatives is far muddier, to the point where the DM is far less certain (to the point of being completely uncertain) what the effect is of the damage taken. Because of the randomness of the 3 saves mechanic, the wound could be fatal; or it could be one easily recovered from. As such, going into the negatives is kind of like stunning in 3e, except a more deadly version because it could be fatal. 4e does not compel me as the DM to describe a serious wound and in fact prefers that I don't because the PC could be back in the action next round through non-magical means (this in fact is particularly analogous to 3e stunning). As such, a character going into the negatives in 4e is required to be described differently; they are just "out of it" for a little while unless they start failing saves which muddies the waters of describing what exactly is happening to the PC. Even a PC close to their negative hp limit can't exactly be described to have a serious wound. The only time I would feel compelled to describe something more serious is if the PC had no surges left. But even then this is muddied because the PC can be at capacity within a day. I leave it up to your own sense of flavour whether this situation is "heroic" or "absurd".

And thus the mental strain that you describe on characters 1 to 30 in 4e is simply not there. They have never really taken a serious wound! The DM has never been given sufficient mechanical justification to describe one.

In 3e with characters 1 to 20, the mental strain most likely is there but going into the negatives in my experience happens less often than 4e so it is not like every combat (I think Hussar is in line with my thinking of about once a game session providing that the game session is one focused on perilous adventuring). The characters that usually end up in the negatives are the frontline fighters. As in 4e the thing that makes such classes special (and particularly tough) is that they can mentally handle the strain of getting seriously wounded (if of course a PC in 4e could ever be seriously wounded). In game, it is normally a case for a humorous sally by the barbarian that his mangled arm is "just a flesh wound". A wimpy wizard in the same situation might still be whimpering like a baby - but this is all up to how one roleplays their character as there is no mechanical support for this in either 3e or 4e (and neither do I think would we want there to be).

As such, I don't quite seem to have the hang-ups you do in regards to the resulting narrative in this regard with 3e while with 4e, it causes me when DMing an element of confusion and an uncomfortable lack of clarity when describing damage because of all of the above. Chalk it up to different playstyles and how we rationalize the mechanics of the game differently.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[DEFCON 1]

As such, I don't quite seem to have the hang-ups you do in regards to the resulting narrative in this regard with 3e while with 4e, it causes me when DMing an element of confusion and an uncomfortable lack of clarity when describing damage because of all of the above. Chalk it up to different playstyles and how we rationalize the mechanics of the game differently.

The point for me is that I don't have hang-ups about EITHER system. I've played them both and I've enjoyed both, but I come at it from a GAME and not a NARRATIVE perspective. I don't get hung up on the realism or unrealism, the heroic or the gritty, being able to justify or not justify etc. etc. because I feel using ANY game (board, role, video or otherwise) as a method for presenting combat narrative is flawed from the get-go. Games are not novels.

The game rules for combat are in place to make the GAME fun.... not to make a narrative (that makes sense or doesn't make sense or anything else). Sure... all these games layer story and fluff ON TOP of the game rules so that you can approximate a narrative with it... but I feel that in ANY combat game, the narrative will always have holes in it. It will never be consistent. There are too many variables within the game itself.

So your choice is either you close eyes to those holes that you think don't lend credence to your narrative, or you not worry about narrative consistency based upon the game rules and create whatever narrative you want. Which is what I do. If the narrative I create happens to align pretty well to what the results of THE GAME has presented to our table... so much the better. That's great! But I'm never going to beholden myself or my narrative to EXACTLY what the game results are (because as I've said... the game and any sense of cohesive narrative are usually not aligned). If someone falls below 0 HP (whether in 3E or 4E or OD&D)... that can and will mean ANYTHING at all that I want it to mean, based upon the story I wish to tell for and with my players.

And each time it happens, it's not going to be exactly the same because my story will never be the same. Sometimes the monster is killed upon reaching 0. Sometimes he's alive but unconscious if the PCs wish to question one. Sometimes when a PC drops below 0HP he has suffered a major injury because it works for the story at that point. Sometimes the PC has fallen unconscious. Sometimes the PC is just exhausted, and an Inspiring Word from the warlord will get him back into the fight. Sometimes a failed 3rd save the PC is dead. Sometimes a failed 3rd save the PC's soul has transferred to a different plane and the party has to go on a quest to retrieve it. It's always different. The story is always different. Even if the game rules are exactly the same... the story is always different. So I just don't worry that some game rules don't make narrative sense. I'm telling my story with my players... the game itself be damned.

I understand completely that's not how most of you look at the game. Which is fine. I just don't really care.

 

[Bedrockgames]

The point for me is that I don't have hang-ups about EITHER system. I've played them both and I've enjoyed both, but I come at it from a GAME and not a NARRATIVE perspective. I don't get hung up on the realism or unrealism, the heroic or the gritty, being able to justify or not justify etc. etc. because I feel using ANY game (board, role, video or otherwise) as a method for presenting combat narrative is flawed from the get-go. Games are not novels.
.

I don't believe games are novels either (in fact I hate when it is just me riding out the GMs "story"). But I do want continuity, consistency and believability as a player. Sure it is a game, but it isn't a game like pong or risk. For me D&D is a game where I take on the role of a hero and get immersed in a living world. Things that create inconsistencies in the setting or our party's history I find quite disruptive.

 

[DEFCON 1]

But I do want continuity, consistency and believability as a player.

I really just can't understand how anyone could use any version of Dungeons & Dragons (or any combat game for that matter) as an example of what you're looking for. Obviously, what you find as continuous, consistent and believeable is worlds away from mine.

 

[billd91]

I really just can't understand how anyone could use any version of Dungeons & Dragons (or any combat game for that matter) as an example of what you're looking for. Obviously, what you find as continuous, consistent and believeable is worlds away from mine.

Maybe part of the problem is viewing D&D as a combat game. It's a game that has a combat minigame within it, but I ultimately see it as a much broader rule framework to adjudicate PCs doing things. What those things are, where they are done, and what they imply is where you tap into continuity, consistency, and believability.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I really just can't understand how anyone could use any version of Dungeons & Dragons (or any combat game for that matter) as an example of what you're looking for. Obviously, what you find as continuous, consistent and believeable is worlds away from mine.

I played a lot of Ravenloft in the 90s and that strongly influenced my play and gm style. My focus has always been more on exploration, investigation, RP etc. To me D&D isn't all about the combat, but when combat occurs I like it to be consistent and plausible (not a physics engine however). So insta-mundane healing creates a problem for me.