D&D (2024) The Problem with Healing Powercreep

[James Gasik]

I think the point is (and mea culpa if I've lost the thread), it's not exactly realistic. You can perform activities that aid or hinder healing in real life, of course, but a flesh and blood person wouldn't likely be going "no, I can't heal right now, it's not efficient, I'll wait for my buddy to show up and play his guitar".

 

[pemerton]

I think the point is (and mea culpa if I've lost the thread), it's not exactly realistic. You can perform activities that aid or hinder healing in real life, of course, but a flesh and blood person wouldn't likely be going "no, I can't heal right now, it's not efficient, I'll wait for my buddy to show up and play his guitar".

But that actually makes sense, in a heroic fantasy context (which 4e expressly adopts): I'm brooding and bitter and can't recover, and then my guitarist friend turns up and rouses me out of my torpor and inspires me to keep going.

That would be how healing surges work. You may spend surges during a rest. Nothing's making you.

When I was GMing a lot of 4e, occasionally a player would not spend a surge if they were down fewer than a surge's worth of hit points. But that's not a verisimilitude issue, it's just an edge case given that the game does not treat recovery in a strictly continuous fashion.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

But they do that from the characters point of view, not from the perspective of the story elements they want to emphasize.

The character's point of view IS a story element they want to emphasize...

But just because one can think about their in-character choices in those terms doesn't mean you have to, or that it's the only way. I have not once made decisions for a PC in terms of the story I want to tell.

I genuinely don't understand how that is possible. You want to evince what that character's personality, knowledge, values, etc. would produce. You chose that personality. Doing so IS choosing what story you want to tell!

 

[James Gasik]

I genuinely don't understand how that is possible. You want to evince what that character's personality, knowledge, values, etc. would produce. You chose that personality. Doing so IS choosing what story you want to tell!

I tend to say something like this a lot when people say "but it's what my character would do" (typically something disruptive to play). "But you chose to make your character that way!"

 

[Retros_x]

I genuinely don't understand how that is possible. You want to evince what that character's personality, knowledge, values, etc. would produce. You chose that personality. Doing so IS choosing what story you want to tell!

This drives me honestly crazy sometimes. Its always players decisions, there is no independent character making decisions for their own. "Its what my character would do!" is bollocks. You can give the same character to a different player, and they will play this character differently - it will still fit the characteristics, but it will essentially be a different character, although the backstory and character traits are the same.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

This drives me honestly crazy sometimes. Its always players decisions, there is no independent character making decisions for their own. "Its what my character would do!" is bollocks. You can give the same character to a different player, and they will play this character differently - it will still fit the characteristics, but it will essentially be a different character, although the backstory and character traits are the same.

A good established character has certain independent existence. They cannot do whatever and remain in-character.

 

[James Gasik]

A good established character has certain independent existence. They cannot do whatever and remain in-character.

What if they're Chaotic Neutral?

 

[Nefermandias]

A good established character has certain independent existence. They cannot do whatever and remain in-character.

Those good, estabilished characters emerge naturally through game play, over the course of several sessions. That's why I don't let my players bring me huge backstories. I much rather leave things fuzzy at the beginning and let the characters be born and take shape of their own.

That said, in my experience the "that's my character would do" crowd are the least immersive, most disruptive ones. They tend to look more like forced caricatures than actual people.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Those good, estabilished characters emerge naturally through game play, over the course of several sessions. That's why I don't let my players bring me huge backstories. I much rather leave things fuzzy at the beginning and let the characters be born and take shape of their own.

That said, in my experience the "that's my character would do" crowd are the least immersive, most disruptive ones. They tend to look more like forced caricatures than actual people.

Because, the vast majority of the time, "that's what my character would do" is an excuse for doing what the player wants to do.

The ones that would sincerely say something like that won't say it as a petulant excuse for bad behavior. I find that, in the rare cases someone ever does sincerely say something like that, it's because it's a moment of epiphany or a sad realization. It's not an excuse for doing something that will upset others; it's the discovery that what you would very much like them to do is something they absolutely are not going to do, or vice versa.

But that discovery is almost never about the kinds of things that would actively upset the other players, especially for a relatively long-running game. Hence, the only people who proffer up that excuse are, by and large, those who are trying to get away with something and hiding behind the claim that they had no choice, the character "made" them somehow (despite this being obviously bunk.)

A good established character has certain independent existence. They cannot do whatever and remain in-character.

But that "certain independent existence" can be pretty slim, especially because patterns only exist so long as they aren't broken. Just any old break is usually not okay, but it's almost always possible to find something that could be the start of development in a new direction.

Especially if...you guessed it...someone decides that that would be an interesting thing to explore. The character--the fictional construct--is not and cannot be capable of making decisions. Always, in every instance of things, it is the player making those decisions. For those who value immersion and continuity (note the difference between this and consistency), a new decision needs to be rooted in past events and the evaluation thereof....but it is precisely that "the evaluation thereof" that permits change.

Otherwise, characters would be rigidly fixed in place, incapable of ever showing any growth or alteration whatsoever. As soon as you allow characters to change in response to not just events themselves, but how the player chooses to evaluate those events, you have ensured that it is not possible for the same character to be played the same way by two different people.

Earlier, I noted the difference between "continuity" and "consistency." Continuity is where that "certain independent existence" lies: there must be a set of reasonable links between the things we knew (or thought) were true before and the things we know (or think) are true now. Continuity permits character development. Consistency, on the other hand, demands no change; two things that are not identical cannot be consistent with one another in the areas where they aren't identical. That's...kind of what consistency means.

Absolute, impenetrable consistency is the death of character growth. But anything less than absolute consistency necessarily relies on continuity--and continuity allows for different people to interpret the same set of inputs differently.

 

[tetrasodium]

Because, the vast majority of the time, "that's what my character would do" is an excuse for doing what the player wants to do.

The ones that would sincerely say something like that won't say it as a petulant excuse for bad behavior. I find that, in the rare cases someone ever does sincerely say something like that, it's because it's a moment of epiphany or a sad realization. It's not an excuse for doing something that will upset others; it's the discovery that what you would very much like them to do is something they absolutely are not going to do, or vice versa.

But that discovery is almost never about the kinds of things that would actively upset the other players, especially for a relatively long-running game. Hence, the only people who proffer up that excuse are, by and large, those who are trying to get away with something and hiding behind the claim that they had no choice, the character "made" them somehow (despite this being obviously bunk.)


But that "certain independent existence" can be pretty slim, especially because patterns only exist so long as they aren't broken. Just any old break is usually not okay, but it's almost always possible to find something that could be the start of development in a new direction.

Especially if...you guessed it...someone decides that that would be an interesting thing to explore. The character--the fictional construct--is not and cannot be capable of making decisions. Always, in every instance of things, it is the player making those decisions. For those who value immersion and continuity (note the difference between this and consistency), a new decision needs to be rooted in past events and the evaluation thereof....but it is precisely that "the evaluation thereof" that permits change.

Otherwise, characters would be rigidly fixed in place, incapable of ever showing any growth or alteration whatsoever. As soon as you allow characters to change in response to not just events themselves, but how the player chooses to evaluate those events, you have ensured that it is not possible for the same character to be played the same way by two different people.

Earlier, I noted the difference between "continuity" and "consistency." Continuity is where that "certain independent existence" lies: there must be a set of reasonable links between the things we knew (or thought) were true before and the things we know (or think) are true now. Continuity permits character development. Consistency, on the other hand, demands no change; two things that are not identical cannot be consistent with one another in the areas where they aren't identical. That's...kind of what consistency means.

Absolute, impenetrable consistency is the death of character growth. But anything less than absolute consistency necessarily relies on continuity--and continuity allows for different people to interpret the same set of inputs differently.

No offense but.... Those three words unction as the same linguistic shield from criticism and responsibility for the words that follow as ttrpg equivalents like:
"It's what my character would do" along with"I'm a roleplayer and..."

I almost never see them used for any other purposes