Take the Narrative Wounding Challenge.

[D'karr]

I don't feel like answering a bunch of separate posts so I'll include them all in one post if I can.

No. All you have done is give a terrible straw man example and try to beat on that. A 10th level character can heal 10 HP overnight. Hit points for a 10th level fighter are typically on the order of 90 - 100. (10 +9*6 + 3 (for Con)*10 = 94)

If a DM described a 10 point wound to a 10th level character as a "serious gash" then THAT would be "stupid".

And the rest of your post really just builds on this totally flawed assessment of both 3E and my point.

Inigo: "You like using that word strawman a lot, I do not think it means what you think it means."

I never used the "narrative" serious wound, you made that assumption. But let's look at this. If a little more than 10% of a fighters "wounds" are not significant enough to call it a "wound", what would be? The rules don't say.

Then again Roguey McRouge is not a fighter. He's a rogue. According to very generous calculations he'd have between 49 to 69 hit points. So that hit will do a little over 20% of his hit points, if he's got poor constitution, and almost 15% of his hit points, if he's got above average constitution (+2 bonus). Just on that single hit.

If he'd been a wizard he'd be really screwed. From 27 to 47 hit points on the very high end. So if he got hit for 37% of his hit points, or for 21% of his hit points that's still not "serious" enough?

See it doesn't matter what the amount of the hit is, because the rules NEVER say anything about the "narrative" of the "wound".

Though, of course, the surge defenders seem to be deeply trapped in overplaying that hand. As has been pointed out, even the 4E DMG advocates describing ACTUAL physical harm. And it has always been understood that it is BOTH physical and "metaphysical".

Since the rules NEVER actually say what percentage of the "hit" is physical it is entirely left to the DM. I've already explained that SPENT healing surges can be considered your "wound" if you so choose. Nothing in the rules prevent you from doing that. The rules are silent in ALL respects of it. I've given more than ample examples of how to use the "existing" rules to make your narrative still make sense. It is only the selective reasoning that affects this, because once again the rules are silent.

Where the surge defenders keep going wrong, as you have here, is trying to the quickly sidestep from "it is both" into "never had much to do with "health". It has absolutely had much to do with health ("physical") AND had much to with abstract ("metaphysical")

I'm not trying to quickly sidestep anything. I've clearly delineated plausible, even in fiction, examples of how you can use the existing rules to support your narrative. You think I'm just painting over it and saying there is no physical damage, when I've clearly shown that with 4e, I finally have a way to represent both within the framework of hit points with no issue. Healing surges allow me to describe the "wound" and its effects. Like I've already said multiple times the rules don't say anything about the "narrative". That is all up to the DM. I've even shown ways to make this more permanent, if the DM wants to.

What is your reason for a fighter's surge to heal the PHYSICAL part of wounds?

Do you insist that no hit point damage may ever be described as a PHYSICAL wound?
Do you insist that fighters can make physical wounds vanish in mid combat?
Surges force you to select one or the other.

Assumptions, assumptions, assumptions, and false statement.

I think that I already provided a clear enough example that uses both 3.x and 4e to answer this round of questioning.

Show me in the rules what damage is physical damage, and what damage is metaphysical....................... ..............................

I guess I'll go on as the rules NEVER define any particular damage as either. Damage reduces HIT POINTS, period. The DM can choose to describe in whatever manner floats his boat. And I've already shown ways of how the mechanics of 4e still support that.

Wrong. What you are describing is ALREADY captured by the very physical/metaphysical combination of hit points. A fighter who is seriously wounding keeps fighting just as you describe. But in 3E he still has wounds which, sooner or later WILL REQUIRE medical attention.
When the 4E character "digs deeper" his wounds NEVER require any further consideration. They have been in ALL WAY removed.

You like using the word "wrong" a lot. Maybe you should actually re-read the examples I've provided before you keep using it.

In a previous post someone, it might have been you, mentioned medical treatment, and how in TV shows it's mostly a background narrative. It is so common that no one even bats an eye towards it.

Since its a background thing and it might have been missed in my previous post, let me reiterate.

During an Extended Rest the DM and players can narrate whatever the heck they want to. Prayers by the Cleric, rousing speeches by the Warlord, bandaging wounds, suturing open skin, cauterizing deep wounds, splinting bones, cleaning out infection, getting some healthy food, and getting a deep rest, does that not sound like treating "wounds" to you?

If the "narrative" of the "wound" was so important to the group, then I'd venture to say that at least a modicum of acknowledgement would be put in, by the same group, to supplement THEIR "narrative" when they are healing their "wounds".

And to boil that down: In fiction "digging deep" is cliche AND requiring follow up actual "healing" is the other half of the equation.

Show me where the second half exists with surges.

What part of the short rest and the extended rest that I've already described does not address what you are asking here?

My main purpose is being in the story.
It really, truly is.

When you advocate skipping that to more expediently get back to killing orcs, you reinforce the "board game" label. I'm not saying that label is fair, but I am saying this aspect of the game contributes to why some see it that way.

The only one giving labels is you. I understand that your main purpose is being in the story.

What story is your character in, the one where you get to battle the dragon and save the princess after much toil and suffering, or the one where the dragon hits you a couple of times, you go unconscious and spend several weeks on bed rest?

I've already explained how I can use the "narrative" and use the rules to accomplish the first story. The fact that the rules are silent on how to achieve the second story does not bother me one bit. If I want to include that story, I do so with the "narrative", the same way the "wound" is not in the rules but in the "narrative".

Am I lying about my games?

Now you're just wasting my time. Thanks, but I'm not playing that game.

When someone extends the "narrative" in their games to include X, because the rules are silent on the matter. It is a little ridiculous to then tell others they are WRONG when they show how to extended the "narrative" to include X in the game that seems not to have it.

Play and enjoy what you like. Just don't ascribe something to others and particularly to the rules that is not there.

 

[JamesonCourage]

In a previous post someone, it might have been you, mentioned medical treatment, and how in TV shows it's mostly a background narrative. It is so common that no one even bats an eye towards it.

Since its a background thing and it might have been missed in my previous post, let me reiterate. During an Extended Rest the DM and players can narrate whatever the heck they want to. Bandaging wounds, suturing open skin, cauterizing deep wounds, splinting bones, cleaning out infection, getting some healthy food, and getting a deep rest, does that not sound like treating "wounds" to you? If the "narrative" of the "wound" was so important to the group, then I'd venture to say that at least a modicum of acknowledgement would be put in, by the same group, to supplement THEIR "narrative" when they are healing their "wounds".

I think you're missing his point on this front (I don't want to say deliberately, because I think you're trying to have a constructive discussion on this).

He was pointing out that while recovery was background, there was also a recovery time. This recovery time was not overnight, and could take a few days to a few weeks. Knowing this, he was saying that 3.X came closer (1-14 days ish) than 4e (1 day).

Description Argument
This is the very point I was trying to make in the healing surge thread that this spun off of. That there is more narrative paths in a system that allows for down time. It had nothing to do with description, and Hussar directing it to that topic missed my point (and, considering that he's ignored my post asking him to even acknowledge my point, I think it was deliberate).

Realism Argument
When I say that I dislike wounds that don't always heal overnight, I don't want it for realism reasons. I want it for the narrative path it provides. It allows the setting to evolve during the downtime (which is the same reason I don't like long distance teleports and the like, and 3.X failed miserably for me here). However, even though I've expressed it's not about realism (as have BryonD and BedrockGames), we keep getting that argument. We're okay with the heroes heroically ignoring wound penalties. We don't need it to attempt to perfectly simulate a real long term wound.

Narrative Paths and the Evolving Setting
I've been trying to point out (to what feels like deaf ears) that the "narrative space" Hussar keeps talking about is in the option to let the setting evolve based on length of injury, not in description of wounds. We just keep getting directed to "realism" arguments or "description" arguments that just don't address the "narrative space" argument I've tried to make.

Long Recovery Time Argument
People have also tried to argue about getting knocked out of the action for a long time. "What would The Dark Knight have been like if Batman had been injured within the first 20 minutes and spent 80 minutes recovering?" and the like. Even with a wound that takes 7 days to heal, you can still skim over the healing process relatively quickly. Recovery time glossed over, more time for heroics, just like what you wanted out of the game. Now, however, more things in the world may have happened, which is what I'd like to see as an option.

Corner Case Argument
People also claim it's a corner case in the game, and that isn't true either (it's playing into the "description" argument, mostly). Any wound that takes a few days to heal when no magical medical aid is available can be very significant. And, as I've said before, I've probably seen a significant change in plans due to recovery time 8-10 times in in my game in the past year. This is not a corner case for me, and labeling it as so after I've expressed that it isn't just won't convince me. You'll need to demonstrate how it is a corner case, and if the argument leads back to the "description" argument, I'm just not going to see it, because it's missing the point of the "narrative path" argument I've been making.

My Main Point
I'd really like people to acknowledge the point being made here about narrative paths and the evolving setting.

• Description isn't an issue.
• Realism isn't an issue.
• Having to be bored while waiting out recovery time isn't an issue.
• This isn't a corner case to my group.
• Having narrative possibilities stripped away because every wound heals overnight and the setting is never given time to evolve based off of those wounds like previous editions allowed is the issue.

But that's just my issue. And I've dealt with it. However, as it came up in discussion, saying "well, it's not really an issue" just does nothing for me. It was, and I had to deal with it. I get that it's not for many others. At least acknowledge the point as valid, because it is. As always, play what you like

 

[Aberzanzorax]

And it remains amusing how difficult it is for a surge defender to get through a post with going to the "realism" straw man.

YARP.





Surges, fundamentally, change the game...this thread has shown that (to defenders and detractors)....it may change the game for the BETTER (for some) and it may change the game for the WORSE (for some).

But, let's stop pretending "ze game remains ze same" cause "ze game ain't ze same"....it has evolved...in an extreme and dramatic way.

Some may say for the better, some for the worse....but anyone who actually claims 4e=3e=2e is wrong....just flat out, crazy, totally, infinitely wrong.

That's not to say 4e>3e or 4e <3e.

It's just to say that there is a meaningful, fundamental difference (and I think healing surges are at the heart of that difference, though not the cause of it).


Or maybe not...maybe 4e is just like 3e, ya know, but better!

 

[Pentius]

So why are you arguing?
I've readily agreed that not caring is a perfectly valid opinion.
Can't you just allow the same?

I imagine it has something to do with me being bullheaded, though I'll point out I was trying to discuss a somewhat different issue with BRG before you brought it up again.

No, you have made a fundamental mistake here.
I don't "like HP as wounds". And if I did 3E would completely fail for me just as it, apparently, does for you.

I like HP as a combination of BOTH wounds and other abstract elements.

4E says: "Nope, all abstraction"

Some system out there with HP as pure wounds = fail (I'm unaware of this actual system existing, at least anything close enough to the D&D type to be relevant)

Some system out there with HP as pure Abstract = fail (4E)

Some system out there with the freedom to work both abstract and wounds from the same HP pool = win (3E/PF)

Alright, sorry. I misunderstood your position. You like a mix of wounds and abstraction. I can actually work with that style myself. It takes a bit of narrative tap dancing, in any edition, but it can work. What 4e does differently is that it introduces mundane healing that basically needs to be healing your metaphysic HP. 4e still allows for magic healing of physical wounds, it just doesn't happen when a buddy shouts at you. Basically, it puts the idea that a character might have physical wounds but max HP(he's low on physical HP, but high on metaphysical HP) to the forefront, making it happen more often. This could happen in old editions, too, though, like D'Karr's example with the rogue.

Again, there is a fundamental mistake.

You are saying the "outcome" is everything and because the outcome defines "made entirely" the difference is meaningless to you.

You don't have steps (2) and (3) in your game. But you absolutely have steps (1) and (4, aka "the outcome").
If someone tried to produce a TV show or write a novel in which characters just jumped from (1) to (4) it would be considered completely absurd.

And you are STRONGLY reinforcing the "board game" stereotype so often placed on 4E. When you say that "outcome" is everything and reject my embracing of narrative continuity you are discarding the VERY THING that makes RPGs such an awesome hobby to me. The story is EVERYTHING to me. And narrative continuity throughout is mandatory for that.

I enjoy Descent and I enjoy Wrath of A, etc... But those game tend to sit on my shelf and gather dust between playings. I actively play D&D about once every two weeks. But I spend time developing stuff for D&D almost most every day. And the creative immersion in the story, being inside the world and the characters, is what it is all about.

When I do play Descent, abstract disconnect are fine. There is a pale aura of "roleplaying" on the character I select and I certainly get into a different mindset when I'm playing and arcane type character vs a melee smash type character. But it is just a shadow of what I get from real RPGs. And it is fine because when I do play those games, that is what I want. I'm in a "board game" mindset, with a little RPG dressing.

And when you say that only the outcome matters and the continuity between the start and end doesn't, then you are exactly describing what it and always has been, to me, the difference between an RPG and a board game. And it is cool that you don't care. A lot of people have zero interest in either, a lot of people love board games and don't care for RPGs. My goal is not REMOTELY to claim I'm doing anything better than you are. Have fun. That is everything.

But the point is, what you are talking about doesn't even address what I am talking about.

You are misunderstanding me. I care about how characters get from (1) to (4). I like to have it narrated. If I didn't, I actually would be fine with HP as wounds, it's when the narration of the middle bits happen that problems crop up with that. I also find they crop up with some interpretations of HP as partially wounds and partially abstract. I need my narrative continuity, too. I am not saying I don't. So that is not the outcome I am talking about.

The outcome I am talking about is that if I go through steps (1),(2),(3) and (4) with HP as wounds, or certain usages of HP as part wound/part abstract, the narrative will not work for me, I will feel a disconnect with it, regardless of the presence or lack of surges. If I go through all those steps with HP as full abstract, or a more bendy(brain-farting on a better word) application, the narrative will work fine for me, again regardless of whether this is 1e, 2e, 3e or 4e we're doing it in. That outcome, of whether following all narrative steps produces a narrative I can accept, is the outcome I care about. That outcome is the one surges don't affect, for me. When I say I do not see them as a fundamental change to the narrative use of HP, it is because the narrative paths I find untenable in 4e are ones I already found untenable in 3e, and the paths I find tenable in 4e are ones I was already successfully using in 3e.

 

[BryonD]

In a previous post someone, it might have been you, mentioned medical treatment, and how in TV shows it's mostly a background narrative. It is so common that no one even bats an eye towards it.

Since its a background thing and it might have been missed in my previous post, let me reiterate.

You still are not grasping the distinction between being in the "background" and "not happening at all".

A fighter putting bandages on himself does not come close to meeting the equivalent of "medical treatment". If it did, why would ANYONE is any TV show EVER go to the hospital?

You ask "Show me in the rules what damage is physical damage, and what damage is metaphysical". It makes me feel like I'm banging my head against a wall. The WHOLE POINT is that it DOESN'T say that anywhere. The whole point is the DM has absolute narrative control over that choice on a case by case basis. That you can not grasp that fundamental element of this conversation speaks volumes.
You claim to have shown how 4E supports showing either real or abstract wounds, but if you understood the complaint you would know you have not come close to that. You only allow for wounds which can be bandaged and are down to "scabbed over" in the morning.

I want (and by avoided 4E I have) much more serious wounds than that. I have wounds that either need real non-first aid treatment, or serious down time to recovery from. Yep, the down time is a hell of a lot shorter then "reality", but it fits really well to heroic fiction.

Trying to substitute first aid and night's snuggle for what I'm demanding is a complete failure.

So, can you give me what I want? Or do I just get more point missing straw men? (And if you truly believe they are not straw men, then that means you are sincere, yet speaking from a position of total lack of comprehension of the issue.)

Show me an example of a wound that a 4E fighter can take and NOT recover from in under 24 hours with NO additional treatment ever needed.

 

[Hussar]

There have been several examples offered. My last example wad tgat 20 points of damage could easily be described as a deep slash or heavy blow without backtracking after the heal in 3e.

Byron also makes an excellent point damage in earlier editions is abstract but tgat abstraction includes physical damage as a component. For me that makes instand mundane healing a little hard to swallow.

I'd strongly quibble with your idea of "several". As I said, there's been EXACTLY ONE actual attempt to answer the original situation.

The thing is, 20 points of damage is equally easy to describe in 4e. How is that any different? Your "working hp" might be the same, but you're down two healing surges, meaning that you are actually functioning at a reduced capacity.

Since neither system actually includes any mechanical effects for the loss of hp before you go into negatives, any narrative you come up with, so long as its acceptable to the table, is identical.

This is where I disagree with Aberzanzorax. I think that the whole "narrative serious wound" thing is a very small corner case that people are blowing way out of proportion. This thread has pretty clearly shown that in most cases, the narration in both editions is identical. The only time it becomes different is when you have the following three elements:

1. A character is knocked into negative hp's and not killed.
2. The party has no magical healing.
3. The wound is described in specific detail.

If any of the above is not true, then there is no difference between how HP's work.

Funnily enough, if you go back a few pages, I posted a video clip from The Princess Bride where Wesley and Inigo Montoya have their (in geek circles anyway) famous duel. Under your concept of HP's, you cannot actually narrate that fight. Since there was no actual physical wounding through that whole fight, why did Inigo lose?

Additionally, if you step back from the idea that "HP loss=physical effects", you actually gain a great deal of narrative space. After all, my 4e Warlock has virtually no effects which deal physical damage. Almost all of them are psychic or fear. But, I can describe my warlock as scaring someone to death through HP loss. If HP=Physical Wounds, you cannot do that.

So, we've lost a very small corner case of narration (Serious Wounds) and gained a whole host of possible narrative elements. I'd say that's a tick in the win column personally.

/edit to add - BTW, since I know he'd correct you too, it's Bryon, not Byron.

 

[BryonD]

What 4e does differently is that it introduces mundane healing that basically needs to be healing your metaphysic HP.

I agree with this, with the critical addition that because surges can heal ALL HP damage always, all wounds MUST now fall in the "metaphysic" side of the balance sheet.

That is the fundamental change which, to me, is unacceptable given the read supply of better options on the market.

You are misunderstanding me. I care about how characters get from (1) to (4). I like to have it narrated. If I didn't, I actually would be fine with HP as wounds, it's when the narration of the middle bits happen that problems crop up with that. I also find they crop up with some interpretations of HP as partially wounds and partially abstract. I need my narrative continuity, too. I am not saying I don't. So that is not the outcome I am talking about.

The outcome I am talking about is that if I go through steps (1),(2),(3) and (4) with HP as wounds, or certain usages of HP as part wound/part abstract, the narrative will not work for me, I will feel a disconnect with it, regardless of the presence or lack of surges. If I go through all those steps with HP as full abstract, or a more bendy(brain-farting on a better word) application, the narrative will work fine for me, again regardless of whether this is 1e, 2e, 3e or 4e we're doing it in. That outcome, of whether following all narrative steps produces a narrative I can accept, is the outcome I care about. That outcome is the one surges don't affect, for me. When I say I do not see them as a fundamental change to the narrative use of HP, it is because the narrative paths I find untenable in 4e are ones I already found untenable in 3e, and the paths I find tenable in 4e are ones I was already successfully using in 3e.

As I've said before, nothing in 3E PREVENTED you from playing 3E the way 4E is played now.

4E, on the other hand, does not allow the narrative space that 3E did if you play the way I still do.

I can readily agree that YOU may see no difference.
Can you see how, without in any way infringing on your view and preference, there can still be a night and day difference for me?

Again, recall that the prior thread started right in with the statement of complete inability to understand why anyone would dislike surges. And this one starts out with a line in the sand demanding that there is no distinction. So that is two different people, plus several who have supported their positions. So, clearly, in the great VENN diagram of gamers, there is a segment somewhere of people who truly see no difference.

And, being completely honest here, I never had trouble accepting the idea that some people would EAGERLY prefer surges, but the idea that some people can't see the GLARING difference they bring was a surprise to me and it took a few encounters for me to fully accept that they are out there.

And here I am in this thread talking to a guy who answers "hospital" with band-aids and a nap.

So, my eyes are open. There are gamers out there who truly see no difference whatsoever.

Do you accept that I have good reasons for greatly caring in the same manner that I accept that you have good reasons for not caring in the least?

Because, for God's sake, play what you like. There are people out there playing chess and Pokeman and Chinese Checkers and they don't even know what we are talking about. And people playing and loving 4E has no more impact on my game than people playing chess.
But when someone tries to tell me that they know better than me about what my game is and is not, I find that boggling.

Can you accept that fighters having wounds they can't make vanish is a big deal to me?

 

[BryonD]

I think that the whole "narrative serious wound" thing is a very small corner case that people are blowing way out of proportion.

For sake of argument, I have a better game that cover my corner cases.

If one game covers 91% of situations and another covers 94%, is it ok to prefer 94%?

This thread has pretty clearly shown that in most cases, the narration in both editions is identical.

I've yet to see ONE SINGLE example under 4E that I find acceptable.

Again, it is easy to say "it works for me", when you are already on board from surges. You need to make an effort at looking at it from the other point of view.

Funnily enough, if you go back a few pages, I posted a video clip from The Princess Bride where Wesley and Inigo Montoya have their (in geek circles anyway) famous duel. Under your concept of HP's, you cannot actually narrate that fight. Since there was no actual physical wounding through that whole fight, why did Inigo lose?

Actually, under HP you fully have the option of describing 100% of damage as metaphysical. It is quite rare that you would, but this is a good example of a case.

And, for that, 3E and 4E both work equally well.

GURPS, for example, would not work well for this, IMO, because there is "nothing" or a wound, with a lot of "nothings".

Additionally, if you step back from the idea that "HP loss=physical effects", you actually gain a great deal of narrative space. After all, my 4e Warlock has virtually no effects which deal physical damage. Almost all of them are psychic or fear. But, I can describe my warlock as scaring someone to death through HP loss. If HP=Physical Wounds, you cannot do that.p

I agree. Constraining HP to physical only *would be* as bad, or even worse, than metaphysical only.

Fortunately, the system I use allows an open-ended blend of the two and it works awesome.

 

[Hussar]

Actually, under HP you fully have the option of describing 100% of damage as metaphysical. It is quite rare that you would, but this is a good example of a case.

So, you disagree with Bedrockgames that hits must be physical? Note, I wasn't the one who brought this up. Those on the "serious wound" side of the fence did.

I probably missed it earlier, but, why can't I describe a 20 HP wound as a "deep gash" (to use BRG's example above) in 4e? It has identical mechanical effects in both editions. They both result in a reduced abilty to continue the adventure. The only difference would come in if neither group had access to magical healing. The 4e character would regain his healing surge the next day, while the 3e character would take a couple of days to regain his full HP.

However, that does make it a pretty small corner case - a group with no magical healing.

 

[Pentius]

I can accept that you see the game differently, and that your differing perception leads us to disagree on things. I don't entirely understand your view in the sense that I can't sit down and envision myself playing that way and having it work for me. But I can accept that it does work for you.

This stuck out to me in your last post, though, I suspect it is the root of our disagreement.

I agree with this, with the critical addition that because surges can heal ALL HP damage always, all wounds MUST now fall in the "metaphysic" side of the balance sheet.

That is the fundamental change which, to me, is unacceptable given the read supply of better options on the market.

I disagree with this addition. I see no problem in, for example, narrating that a Fighter takes, say, 10HP of damage and it is described as a gash to the arm, and then having him second wind and regain 10HP of metaphysical HP. He's at his maximum HP, because of additional metaphsyical HP, but the gash is still there.