Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JamesonCourage" data-source="post: 5711399" data-attributes="member: 6668292">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: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 <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification