The (Non-)Playtest Experience, or How the Hit Die Mechanic was a Non-Starter

[rounser]

Furthermore, the design goal for the DDN core rules are simplicity, simplicity, simplicity. Having convoluted systems for wounds are definitely right out, and even rules that require days of natural healing are needlessly complex because they violate the idea of what HP is.

Overnight autoheals violate assumptions about HP. WOTC has had an entire edition of complaints about non-magical healing, and still the message seems not to have got through.

 

[JamesonCourage]

He doesn't like one rule in a playtest version of the game - one in which the developers have stated that the erred on the side of caution when it comes to healing and HP in this version of the playtest - so he throws a fit, hands his character sheet in, and refuses to play. That's a slap in the face to you and all the work and expense you went through to learn the rules in order to teach them to the group, learning the module so you could run it, and printing out the materials. It's rude and insulting behavior and I wouldn't tolerate it.

Yeah, not to me. At all. If I say "I'm learning the system so I can run it for you guys. Show up to play, and we'll have some fun with it!" and then they show up to play, and back out because it won't be fun, then it's completely understandable. They showed up to have fun, and now they won't. One rule can do that. If you don't believe me, let me know, and I'll come up with a rule that's a deal-breaker for you.

And in fact, I didn't tolerate it when one of my players (who has been a friend of mine for a decade and a half) did it to me when I ran a 4e one-shot as a dream sequence tied into my weekly Pathfinder campaign. I let him storm out, but I confronted him about it afterward. I told him the effort I went into creating characters and an adventure that was fun but still easy for players unfamiliar with the edition. I also took pains to tie the adventure into the campaign story. I told him how I felt about how he acted and he apologized. He hasn't thrown a fit like that again.

I'd have left, too. And I may not have come back to your game without assurances that it won't happen again. Part of GMing is helping to establish the social contract for the group. Having fun is usually a given (but sometimes people play for other reasons, like playtesting or mental exercise). Using a set system is usually a given. Having everyone get along out-of-game is usually a given. Then there's all the standard agreed upon stuff that people work out (setting, high/low magic, genre, etc.).

You bypassed one of the givens. Not even one of the variables, but a given. You swapped systems on him. Even if I liked the system, I wouldn't want to do that. If my brother was running a game, and he swapped us to Mage or something, I'd be like, "um, no thanks." I don't go for cutscenes in-game ("the bad guy is doing this"; "I want to do this, before he gets away"; "you can't, sorry") without the mechanics justifying it (like the GM Fiat mechanic in Mutants and Masterminds 2e). I don't go for railroad plots in-game. I don't play systems I don't have fun with. I don't play genres I don't have fun with.

My goal is almost always fun (it differs if I'm playtesting, for example). In such a circumstance, where I show up for fun and then I'm presented with a situation where I won't have fun, I'm going to stop. I'm not going to demand that you stop your game, but I'm not about to stop having fun (and probably bringing the rest of the group down) because it's "polite" or something. We're all friends in my group, and they know we'll be fine out of game. But, again, I'm not about to play something that's not fun, and I'll be annoyed if I'm essentially mislead (by someone breaking the social contract).

And I really like the "get all your HP back at the end of the day" mechanic. Because frankly, it doesn't matter if they get 1HP back per day or all of them. It's going to end up exactly the same at the table. "We go and make camp away from the caves" and "We go back to down and heal up for a fortnight" mean exactly the same in terms of pacing of the game session. It's going to get glossed over either way, so what's the real difference? It's fluff. If you don't like it, change it.

I disagree. Hard. Take a two week break in my game, and see if everything is the same. It's not. A lot will be. Probably the majority of things, really. But my world is not static. It evolves. I like weeks or months of travel (and dislike reliable Teleport) because of this, too. Long rests, long travel, etc. Anything to help the world move along and evolve. Also, it does help lessen the "level 1 to 20 in a year!" kind of play. Is there room for that kind of game? Absolutely. I just happen to not prefer it (most of the time).

Will people say "you wait overnight, and are healed. What now?" and "you wait two weeks, and are healed. What now"? Yes, they will. Sometimes the group will get interrupted (either group), but many times both will just get skipped. The consequences of the time skip, though, are extremely important to the pacing of the game, from an in-world perspective. It's anything but flavor. As always, play what you like

Except that he didn't even try the game, he just poo-pooed it before trying it due to this one rule that must make the game completely unplayable somehow. I'd respect the opinion, too, but I'd have taken the sheet and said, "Okay, see ya next week. Everyone else ready to play?"

Probably anyway. I do my best to not hang out with such closed-minded people.

I'd probably have run the game, too. I'd see who else was down to play, and if the majority were (3/5, 4/6, etc.), then I'd run it. Though, I think that it should have been approached as a "let's playtest new D&D" instead of "let's try new D&D". I think that the GURPS GM went in looking to have fun, and not work out wrinkles. And that's not going to work when a single mechanic can ruin the game that much for him (understandably so).

Should it have been houseruled? Probably. I'd have done so.

My group just gets together to hang out, eat junk food, and play a fun game around my dining room table. Trying to dissect the fundamental workings of the game-universe doesn't enter into it.

My group is fundamentally different from yours. I think that the developers should really include a few dials that people have asked for so far, especially on the contentious issues. Like giving different healing times, for example. Let your relaxed table work with my (probably) more immersion-based table. The dials are a big thing, and presentation is key to 5e.

It's key, and it needs to capture as many people as it can at all times. Saying "it's got dials" and then not offering much of an alternative (the "restore HP = level + Con bonus" has problems) isn't going to help capture the people who are tolerating things they dislike (like the Hit Die mechanic). Give them alternatives, and show that a couple simple dials can really help everyone be on board. Just my thoughts, though.

It is silly & rude to his group. Forcing your gaming group, to NOT play that night due to his lack of flexibility. It was a one shot game, be a sport. He has not spent a dime on the game, also denying himself to give negative feedback to WOTC. Giving up the chance to complain how he disliked D&D next for the next decade.

Again, I wouldn't have played in a game that wasn't fun for me, unless fun wasn't my goal. It was obviously his goal. My friends can play without me (I wouldn't just excused myself). It's not a matter of money, it's a matter of mutual respect:

"Sorry that you wasted time on learning the system, but if you respect my time, you won't waste it by having me engage it in something that isn't enjoyable when it should be. Your 'waste of time' learning the system is unfortunate, but wasn't predictable before this point. Based on a lot of past experience, I know that I won't enjoy this game, and expecting me to play is not respecting my time. Thanks for the offer, but I don't want to play in a game that has such a mechanic in effect."

It's not rude to bow out. I'd hand my sheet over, too. Thanks, but no thanks.

However, the player described in the OP is being ridiculous. For all the reasons given up thread.

At the very least, he should have grit his teeth and played on, for the benefit of the rest of the group. Ideally, he could then have told WotC that he considered that mechanic an absolute deal-breaker. That would actually have been a useful response.

I really disagree, but only because it appears he showed up to have fun, and not to playtest. If he was a dedicated playtester, then I'd agree. If he's looking to have fun, like Obryn and his group, I don't blame him for not playing.

Should he have approached the session from a more "here to playtest, not have fun" view? Maybe. I can see people argue both ways on it. However, if he's most concerned about having a good time when engaging in his hobby, I don't blame him one bit for handing his sheet over. I'd've done the same, if I felt blindsided by something so objectionable to my tastes.

It seems to me like the fault with the original poster's situation was really with expectations. The whole issue could have been avoided if there'd been an upfront disclaimer (or even an after the fact disclaimer) where someone said, "This is a playtest. There will be parts you do not like. This is not a finished game. Our job is to identify the parts we don't like and to provide WotC with feedback along those lines."

Instead, it sounds like it was pitched as "Let's try out 5th Edition."

I completely agree with this. This would've solved a lot of issues (even if that meant that he never showed up to the session to begin with, because it didn't sound fun). I really can't fault someone for leaving a game that doesn't sound fun for them, when that's how they want to spend their free time.

I've said that presentation is key in 5e, and I think it is. It may even make or break it. I think the same might be applicable to this group with this session. As always, play what you like

 

[FireLance]

Overnight autoheals violate assumptions about HP. WOTC has had an entire edition of complaints about non-magical healing, and still the message seems not to have got through.

Overnight healing violates the assumptions that certain (not all) people have about hit points, and WotC received complaints about non-magical healing from certain (not all) people. Based solely on the number of people who speak out in support of both overnight healing and non-magical healing on threads such as these (some even citing the fact that it is more closely in line with the official definition of hit points since the early days of the game), there is a significant proportion of gamers who like both overnight healing and non-magical healing.

The crux of the issue is this: are you arguing for overnight healing to be OUT of 5e, or for the option to have slower healing to be IN 5e?

 

[Hussar]

Hey Rounser, if you look at the original Basic rules definition of HP, you get this:

Hit points represent the number of "points" of damage a character or monster can take during battle before dying.

You might want to rethink that whole "4e changed everything" schtick you've got going here. Basic D&D certainly doesn't agree with you originally.

 

[Bagpuss]

"I get that they want to not force players to be a cleric, but how do you simulate a wilderness survival scenario, or an extended mission scenario using this mechanic?"

Because of the other part of the long rest mechanic, that any interruption cancels it means in a wilderness survival or extended mission, you would never actually be able to take a long rest. Oh and it has very little to do with forcing someone to be a cleric or not. All it stops are parties walking round with barrels of healing potion, or multiple wands of cure light wounds.

 

[Tony Vargas]

[MENTION=85870]innerdude[/MENTION]: I want to encourage you to run your playtest and to continue with future playtests, anyway. Give as negative feedback as you need to to convey how your players felt about it. It's important that WotC get results of bad playtests as well as good, otherwise how will they improve the game?

But as soon as I explain the hit die / healing mechanics, the GURPS GM (who was going to be a PC for the playtest), hands back the character sheet, and says, "I won't play a game where your hit points are LITERALLY guaranteed to be returned to you every night. Period. If this is how the game works, it's a waste of time to even play it. Let's do something else."

Obviously, part of the problem is the attitude of your buddy - but, he runs GURPS, so you knew what you were getting into when you invited him to a D&D playtest.

"I get that they want to not force players to be a cleric, but how do you simulate a wilderness survival scenario, or an extended mission scenario using this mechanic?"

I can think of several ways: Rule that in a survival scenario, it is not possible to have an extended rest (even if you have the time), because of the strain and privation of the circumstances (otherwise their survival wouldn't be in question). Similarly, if the 'extended mission' is behind enemy lines or otherwise clandestine, you could deny extended rests on the basis of needing to be constantly on the move and/or on-guard. You could also add mechanics to the game (or they could add a module) to handle longer-term wounds. You may get all your 'hit points' back, but you still have a broken arm until it heals.

Another thing to consider, though, is if the party /did/ have a cleric, how would you run the 'survival scenario' when the cleric can just create food and water every day? And how could you run the 'extended mission scenario' if another caster could scry the objective and port you in and out? Or, for that matter, how is the 'extended mission' going to go if the party uses guerilla tactics to pick their battles, and never accepts more than one combat/day? Full hit points will be a minor consideration compared to the 'Vancian' casters going into each fight with a full rack of spells custom-chosen for that day's victims.

There are a lot of things about the direction 5e is headed that'll constrain the kinds of stories you can tell. The nature of hit points is not among the worst of them.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Overnight healing of someone who has at least 1 HP is a great, intuitive, and simple system, but here's the thing. There's no reason why there can't be a "gritty realism" module that adds complexity to healing and wounds, requires longer periods of natural healing, etc. That would be a fantastic system that let many people play the game they want to play. It just shouldn't be the core, ground-level ruleset for HP and healing.

Neither should HD or overnight heals be core, ground level ruleset. They are enormously divisive and at least half the fanbase appears to despise them. No need to re-work HP. Just use the standard healing and HP that appeared in the first several editions for those of us who were fine with how they worked. Add in HD and one night heals as an option for people who want it. I think people on this thread are seriously underestimating the negative reaction to one night heals.

 

[Obryn]

Again, I wouldn't have played in a game that wasn't fun for me, unless fun wasn't my goal.

The gap that I am specifically running into is that this is a very, very small part of the game as a whole. There are numerous parts of the game where the healing rules don't even come up directly.

It seems a weird point of contention, is all - enough to decide not to try the remainder of the game.

My belief is that the developers are riding a fine line, and that there are some people who there's no pleasing. I am not certain, but this may be an example of one of them.

Have no doubt - just because my group is casual doesn't mean we're not demanding. We come to roleplay, explore, eat, drink, and be merry. We've played games from many ends of the spectrum - 3.5, Arcana Evolved, 1e, SWSE, WFRP2e, Paranoia, etc. The main thing we want is for it to be approachable by both casual and serious players, with a sliding scale of complexity. I want something that's easy to prepare and fun to run without burying me in details.

So we have some needs, too. Just because we're a casual table doesn't mean we don't have goals.

-O

 

[Deadboy]

The funniest thing I find about the entire argument against overnight healing is that its largely an ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT RULE. It's a fair assumption that most groups will have access to magical or otherwise faster healing which will allow the PCs to resume adventuring within a day or two, tops. So how long it actually takes to naturally heal is a rule that most groups won't use.

These people are arguing for the inclusion of a rule they will pretty much ignore. It's absurd.

Also, the side argument about hit points and what they represent is an argument doomed to go round and round.

Are hit points representation of injury? Yes.

Are they a representation of a character's skill, luck and favor of the gods? Again, yes.

Both sides are pretty much right, and depending upon the edition, you can find rules support for your interpretation. But to try and say that the current playtest interpretation is un-D&D or acting like WotC is somehow radically reinterpreting basic assumptions about hit points is dead wrong. If anything, it's far closer to the first edition view of hit points, where Gary was very specific to point out that very little of a character's hit point total represented actual injury.

Arguments for realism are perplexing to me. So... It's realistic to assume that the character's hit point loss is actual injury and a week camping out in the woods while seriously injured is enough to heal? How is that remotely realistic? A badly injured person exposed to the elements for a week is a dead duck (or at least going to need to have a limb amputated) due to the very large chance his injuries will become infected. So realistic... Not so much. I've always felt it was more realistic for hit point loss to not represent much more than fatigue and maybe a few bumps, bruises and abrasions and not have to worry about the realism of a badly injured character with only medieval-level medicine to save him.

Or yeah... Magical healing. Which, just like with healing times, makes the whole point moot.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Arguments for realism are perplexing to me. So... It's realistic to assume that the character's hit point loss is actual injury and a week camping out in the woods while seriously injured is enough to heal? How is that remotely realistic? A badly injured person exposed to the elements for a week is a dead duck (or at least going to need to have a limb amputated) due to the very large chance his injuries will become infected. So realistic... Not so much. I've always felt it was more realistic for hit point loss to not represent much more than fatigue and maybe a few bumps, bruises and abrasions and not have to worry about the realism of a badly injured character with only medieval-level medicine to save him.

Or yeah... Magical healing. Which, just like with healing times, makes the whole point moot.

About half the gamer population agrees with you. It is a reasonable position. But about half strongly disagrees and finds one day healing seriously disruptive to their experience of the game. Both sides sides have good arguments, neither side will convince the other. They are going to have to arrive at a workable solution. IMO HD and one day heals as default core is not a workable solution. I can houserule it out and play just fine. But I think they will lose a lot of people if they leave this stuff in the core.

 

[Deadboy]

About half the gamer population agrees with you. It is a reasonable position. But about half strongly disagrees and finds one day healing seriously disruptive to their experience of the game. Both sides sides have good arguments, neither side will convince the other. They are going to have to arrive at a workable solution. IMO HD and one day heals as default core is not a workable solution. I can houserule it out and play just fine. But I think they will lose a lot of people if they leave this stuff in the core.

But again, why? Isn't the point entirely moot, as I mentioned? I've been playing D&D since 1986 and I have NEVER, in any game with long natural healing times, had my character naturally heal. When I was young we just entirely ignored the rules and as I got older, we always had magical healing, either from a party member or from a local temple.

So what difference does it make whether you like HP and healing one way or another, especially to entirely reject the game over. Who actually uses that rule? Is it just the comfort of knowing its there? If that's so, WotC can go right ahead and set the healing at the "grittiest" (and I say that in quotes because I still reject how gritty it actually is, it's just a longer period of time) and I'll still happily ignore that rule and have my characters ready to go the next day. Thanks Mr. Cleric.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

How did the OP even become friends with someone like this?

D&D is a social game, it wouldn't matter what the system was, playing with a guy like this wouldn't be good under any circumstances.

Why would a group of people even let a single chump dictate their activities to them? Does he have to get their permission to see a movie? Go to a resturant?

If anyone gave me "If this is how the game works, it's a waste of time to even play it. Let's do something else." my answer would be "Sure, see you later, hope you don't need a ride home cuz you'll be waiting outside for 3 or 4 hours while we do this thing."

In no way does this indicate a problem with 5e, or the playtest. It only indicates an issue with the maturity of a single player.

Forcing him to play something he obviously doesn't like makes you no less of a jerk than you are ascribing him. Now, if everyone else wanted to play and he railed at them and ruined their game, I'd agree he's a jerk, but simply saying, he'd prefer to play something else does not make him a jerk. The common sense thing is to state his preference, and if others agree, play something else, if not, then go home. I wouldn't play in a game with 5e's moronic healing, either, but I wouldn't force my style on the whole group. I guess I'm a jerk, though.

 

[n00bdragon]

About half the gamer population agrees with you. It is a reasonable position. But about half strongly disagrees and finds one day healing seriously disruptive to their experience of the game. Both sides sides have good arguments, neither side will convince the other. They are going to have to arrive at a workable solution. IMO HD and one day heals as default core is not a workable solution. I can houserule it out and play just fine. But I think they will lose a lot of people if they leave this stuff in the core.

As much as I disagree with you on how legitimate the "unrealistic" complaint is I'm inclined to agree that neither side will convince the other. This "abortions for some miniature American flags for others" stance by WotC needs to end though. They should just come out and state what their goals are on this, draw a line in the sand and say "We're doing it this way. This is how the game is meant to be played. If you don't like it the door is over there." Trying to please everyone just ends up making everyone unhappy and wishing they were playing their favorite edition instead.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Except that ISN'T WHAT HP DAMAGE HAS EVER REPRESENTED PER THE DESIGNERS OF EVERY EDITION. Go back and re-read the 1E PHB. Don't AD/HD it, read the WHOLE section and comprehend it. This isn't about "horrible wounds", that's not only a strawman but utterly ignorant of what the game books actually say about it.


Again, this is utterly a gross misrepresentation of the way it actually works. You're less likely to go for a 15-minute adventuring day because one tough fight doesn't leave you with nothing left in the tank. Also, even mediocre-designed encounters can challenge a party's resources leaving them in daner of death even with most of their surges left.

BECAUSE IT'S NOT! Read the friggin' books again.


So you take a partial excerpt from a blogger and twist it. That's not a credible take. Read the books again. Heck, read the blog again:
The Alexandrian Blog Archive Explaining Hit Points

And read the responses. The line you quote doesn't match the rest of the essay even.

I've read the friggin' books. I was probably reading them before you were born. Pre 4e hit point damage was damage, period. 4e and beyond, damage is mostly emotional. It needs to change. It was this way for 30 years, and worked fine. This new revisionist interpretation has to go or it's going to piss off a lot of would-be customers. But then, we have always been at war with Eastasia..

 

[rounser]

You might want to rethink that whole "4e changed everything" schtick you've got going here. Basic D&D certainly doesn't agree with you originally.

Of course 4E attempted to redefine this aspect of the game, and was duly declared "not D&D" by a large segment of D&D's former audience.

Shout healing? 4E.
Schrodinger's damage? 4E.
"Healing surges"? 4E.
1 HP balloon animal monsters called "minions"? 4E.

And given that I cited the Rules Cyclopedia definition unthread from your post, you're hardly scoring points off of me by citing BECMI there. Fact is, 4E and now 5E muddy the HP waters in a way that does not match prior editions. If they're violating D&D assumptions and purporting to be D&D, then that's the designers' problem. I just see them walking again into the same trap as last time. And I understand that the 4E audience doesn't care about these details - they accepted 4E, after all.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Yeah because quivers of CLW wands and gallon jugs of healing potions is so much more believable.

And I guarantee if the DM does not allow the above the players would complain and walk away as a non-starter like the player in the OP's post.

There are no healing wands in my game, and healing potions are rare, yet 8 people show up every week. Imagine that!

 

[MacMathan]

One point that might make it more palatable for your group is that the overnight healing mechanic has not IMO influenced the design of the play test module.

Some posters have expressed concern for the assumptions to the game that are forced upon adventures but I think the Caves works when played either way.

 

[Bedrockgames]

But again, why? Isn't the point entirely moot, as I mentioned? I've been playing D&D since 1986 and I have NEVER, in any game with long natural healing times, had my character naturally heal. When I was young we just entirely ignored the rules and as I got older, we always had magical healing, either from a party member or from a local temple.

So what difference does it make whether you like HP and healing one way or another, especially to entirely reject the game over. Who actually uses that rule? Is it just the comfort of knowing its there? If that's so, WotC can go right ahead and set the healing at the "grittiest" (and I say that in quotes because I still reject how gritty it actually is, it's just a longer period of time) and I'll still happily ignore that rule and have my characters ready to go the next day. Thanks Mr. Cleric.

It isn't moot. We have had this discussion on other threads so no point going over it all over again. But healers die, get incapacitated,some groups dont have clerics, sometimes cleric magic isn't enough for everyone, etc. It comes up enough to bother people. If people on the other side of the debate cant fathom the "why" it doesn't really matters. What matters is enough people are bothered by it to impact sales.

 

[FireLance]

Remind me again. Why do we, as a community, tend to cite teamwork and consensus building as some of the social benefits of playing RPGs?

 

[Argyle King]

Obviously, part of the problem is the attitude of your buddy - but, he runs GURPS, so you knew what you were getting into when you invited him to a D&D playtest.
.

Being that I'm someone who also runs GURPS and avidly plays that system, I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say with this comment.

I have gone through the D&D playtest several times. Some things I liked; some things I didn't.