TheRPGSite

Finally, a more crunchy preview from Wizards... original article is here (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20080201a&authentic=true).

This actually seems remarkably sensible, to me (and the fact that monsters are likely to dish out more damage than in 3E somewhat justifies the higher starting hitpoints to me).

QuoteCharacter death is one of the ultimate threats in any RPG, and D&D is no exception. Besides the obvious, um, "inconveniences" that death might cause your character and his allies in both the short and long term—inconveniences which vary based on your level, the current situation, and of course your attachment to that particular character—death is a mark of failure. In some hard-to-explain but very real way, a dead character symbolizes that you just "lost" at D&D. That can prove a bitter pill for many players, and in my experience is even more frustrating than paying for a resurrection.

What We Hated

Early in the design process, Rob, James, and I identified a number of ways that we were unsatisified with D&D's current death and dying rules. For example, we strongly disliked the inability of 3rd Edition D&D's negative-hit-point model to deal with combat at higher levels—once the monsters are reliably dealing 15 or 20 points of damage with each attack, the chance of a character going straight from "alive and kicking" to "time to go through his pockets for loose change" was exceedingly high; effectively, the -1 to -9 "dying" range was meaningless. Ask any high-level fighter whether he'd prefer the second-to-last attack from a monster to leave him at 1 hp or -1 hp; I'd put odds on unconsciousness, and how lame is that?

Among other problems, this also meant that characters effectively had no way to "lose" a combat except by being killed. This removes a lot of dramatic possibilities for the story—for instance, the classic scene of the characters being captured and thrown in a cell from which they have to escape using only their wits and a pack of chewing gum (or whatever).

On top of all that, the game added a complex state of being at exactly 0 hp, which wasn't quite like being fully capable but also wasn't quite dying. Honestly, though, how often does any character actually get reduced to exactly 0 hp? Why did the game need a condition that existed at exactly one spot on the big, broad range of hit point possibilities?

What We Wanted

We wanted a death and dying system that added fun and tension at the table, scaled well to any level of play, and created the threat of PC mortality (without delivering on that threat as often as 3rd Edition did).

Characters had to feel that death was a possibility in order for combat to feel meaningful. If it seems impossible to be killed, much of the tension of combat disappears. However, if the majority of combats result in death (as is the case for a lot of high-level play in previous editions), the game is forced to reclassify death as a trivial obstacle in order to remain playable. 3rd Edition accomplished this with popular spells such as close wounds, delay death, and revivify—mandatory staples of any high-level cleric's arsenal due purely to the commonality of death. But that removes the tension, and now what's the point of death at all?

The system also had to be simple to remember and adjudicate at the table. Being able to keep the rule in your head is important, because you don't want to be bogging the game down flipping through a book when a character is clinging to life by a thread—that should be high-tension time, not slowdown time!

Finally, it had to be believable within the heroic-fantasy milieu of D&D. (Believability isn't the same thing as realism—an error which has ruined more games than I can count.) Put another way, it had to feel like D&D—one of those tricky "you know it when you see it" things.

What We Did About It

Back in 2005, this was obviously a much lower priority than, say, creating the new model for how classes and races worked, so we put it on the back burner to simmer. As the months passed, we and other designers proposed various models that tried to solve the conundrums set out above, varying from exceedingly abstract to witheringly simulationist. We playtested every model, from death tracks to life points, each time learning something different about what worked or didn't work. A few times, we even temporarily settled on a solution, claiming that the playtesters only needed time to get used to our radical new ideas.

Side note to all those would-be game designers out there: When you hear yourself making that claim, you might be in danger of losing touch with reality. Sometimes you're right, and your innovative game design concept just needs a little time to sink in. (The cycling initiative system used by 3rd Edition D&D is a good example of that—back in 1999, some very vociferous playtesters were convinced that it would ruin D&D combat forever. Turned out that wasn't exactly true.) But every time you convince yourself that you know better than the people playing your game, you're opening the possibility of a very rude (and costly) awakening.

Thankfully, our awakening came well before we released the game (or even before widescale playtesting began, for that matter). Despite some quite elegant concepts, none of our radical new ideas met all the criteria necessary, including simplicity, playability, fun, and believability.

The system had to be at least as simple to remember and at least as easy to play as what already existed. For all their other flaws, negative hit points are pretty easy to use, and they work well with the existing hit-point system.

It had to be at least as much fun as what already existed, and it had to be at least as believable as what already existed. In ideal situations, negative hit points create fun tension at the table, and they're reasonably believable, at least within the heroic fantasy milieu of D&D, where characters are supposed to get the stuffing beaten out of them on a regular basis without serious consequences.

Every one of our new ideas failed to meet at least one of those criteria. Maybe they were playable but too abstract to feel fun or believable, or they were believable but too complicated to remember. Nothing worked, and I admit we experienced a couple of freak-out moments behind closed doors.

The Breakthrough

Eventually we got it through our heads that there wasn't a radical new game mechanic just waiting to be discovered that would revolutionize the narrow window between life and death in D&D. What we really needed to do was just widen the window, reframe it, and maybe put in an extra pane for insulation. (OK, that analogy went off the tracks, but its heart was in the right place.)

Characters still use a negative hit point threshold to determine when they move from "unconscious and dying" to "all-the-way-dead," but now that threshold scales with their level (or more specifically, with their hit point total). A character with 30 hit points (such as a low-level cleric) dies when he reaches -15 hit points, while the 15th-level fighter with 120 hp isn't killed until he's reduced to -60 hit points.

That may seem like an unreachable number, but it's important to remember that monsters, like characters, aren't piling on as many attacks on their turn as in 3rd Edition. At 15th level, that fighter might face a tough brute capable of dishing out 25 or 30 points of damage with its best attack... or nearly twice that on a crit. The threat of "alive-to-negative-everything" on a single hit remains in play, but it's much less common than in the previous edition. That puts that bit of tension back where it belongs.

The new system also retains the "unconscious character bleeding out" concept, but for obvious reasons speeds it along a bit. (There's not really any tension watching that 15th-level fighter bleed out at a rate of 1 hp per round for 30 or 40 rounds.) Thanks to some clever abstractions, the new system also removes the predictability of the current death timer. ("OK, Regdar's at -2 hp, so we have 8 rounds to get to him. Yawn... time for a nap.")

It's also less costly to bring dying characters back into the fight now—there's no "negative hit point tax" that you have to pay out of the healing delivered by your cure serious wounds prayer. That helps ensure that a character who was healed from unconsciousness isn't in an immediate threat of going right back there (and you'll never again have the "I fed Jozan a potion of healing but he's still at negative hit points" disappointment).

Monsters don't need or use this system unless the DM has special reason to do so. A monster at 0 hp is dead, and you don't have to worry about wandering around the battlefield stabbing all your unconscious foes. (I'm sure my table isn't the only place that happens.) We've talked elsewhere about some of the bogus parallelism that can lead to bad game design—such as all monsters having to follow character creation rules, even though they're supposed to be foes to kill, not player characters—this is just another example of the game escaping that trap. Sure, a DM can decide for dramatic reasons that a notable NPC or monster might linger on after being defeated. Maybe a dying enemy survives to deliver a final warning or curse before expiring, or at the end of a fight the PCs discover a bloody trail leading away from where the evil warlock fell, but those will be significant, story-based exceptions to the norm.

Oh, and speaking of zero hit points? You're unconscious and dying, just like every new player expects it should be. It's not as harsh as the "dead at 0 hp" rule of the original D&D game, but it's still not a place you want to be for long!

Try It Now!

If you want to try out a version of this system in your current game, try the following house rule. It's not quite the 4th Edition system, but it should give you an idea of how it'll feel.

1) At 0 hp or less, you fall unconscious and are dying.
Any damage dealt to a dying character is applied normally, and might kill him if it reduces his hit points far enough (see #2).

2) Characters die when their negative hit point total reaches -10 or one-quarter of their full normal hit points, whichever is a larger value.
This is less than a 4th Edition character would have, but each monster attack is dealing a smaller fraction of the character's total hit points, so it should be reasonable. If it feels too small, increase it to one-third full normal hit points and try again.

3) If you're dying at the end of your turn, roll 1d20.
Lower than 10: You get worse. If you get this result three times before you are healed or stabilized (as per the Heal skill), you die.
10-19: No change.
20: You get better! You wake up with hit points equal to one-quarter your full normal hit points.

4) If a character with negative hit points receives healing, he returns to 0 hp before any healing is applied.
In other words, he'll wake up again with hit points equal to the healing provided by the effect—a cure light wounds spell for 7 hp will bring any dying character back to 7 hp, no matter what his negative hit point total had reached.)

5) A dying character who's been stabilized (via the Heal skill) doesn't roll a d20 at the end of his turn unless he takes more damage.

Yeah, i saw that. There's one problem to my thinking. Characters with low hit dice are being 'punished' twice. With hps becoming more of an abstraction (what with 2nd wind, and other morale based healing) it doesn't work in the negatives. If hit points are this big mash up of skill, luck, morale etc, then you can easily justify the different hit dice folks are getting. But once you're unconscious, how do these abstractions still come into play? You can't employ your skill whilst lying on the ground. Thus, i think that basing your negative threshold on 1/2 hit points isn't the way to go (also the fact that lower hit point people are being gimped twice). At least in 3e, everyone had the same threshold.

I see what they are doing and why, but i wouldn't use hit point totals to do it. Either make the threshold bigger and the same for everyone or do something like make it the Con score of the character. Then double that score when they reach the paragon tier and triple it when they reach the epic tier of play.

Well we all know D&D hitpoints are stupid We have been using this homebrew system for about 10 years ... Might not work with monstered sealling consistently more damage now but that is just a tweak to levels

A 6th level Fighter on about 40 hit points merely laughs at the man holding the loaded cross bow 10 feet away (in first edition you could have got away with using the assasination table to make it a bit more scary).
Why can a reasonably experienced fighter take more damage than a warhorse?

We know the rationale. The fighter moves their body so that a deadly thust becomes a light scratch. In effect its the % of the hit points that matters.
However, in that case how can a 1st level wizard with 3 hit points loose 1/3 of their hits and totally recover after 1 day whereas a 15th level fighter can loose 1/3 of their hit points say 30 and it takes them a month to recover...

So with that in mind.

Your hit points beome a pool you can use to absorb damage. You can absorb 1/5 of your hit points from any strike. Hit points recover at at rate of 10% of your hit points every hour of rest. So evereyone has all their hitpoints back after 10 hours of complete rest.
As well as Hitpoints you have wounds. Every player have 4 wounds + their con bonus. When you take a hit you take your absorb off it (1/5 of your max hitpoints) the rest hits you as wounds. Each wound taken takes 1 week to heal. If you want to play 'realistic' fantasy then each wound also gives you -2 or -10% on all dice rolls don't recommend this myself under most conditions.
When you have taken all your wounds in damage you are unconcious at -4 wounds you are dead.
All Spells, area affects, and similar gross damage comes straight off hits and only impacts wounds after all hits are exhausted.
Cure spells - Cure light wounds cures 1 wound - extrapolate the rest from there.
Hitting someone when they are tied up asleep or otherwise helpless just goes straight to wounds. No longer does it take 6 blows for the headsman to decapitate the Duke.
Mosters just have hitpoints cos no one wants to track this stuff. Humanoid , npc type oponents have wounds. You can use wounds on the big stuff and do the 'there is a single weakness in their armour bit' If so a creature has 2 wounds per hitdice. I usually wouldn't bother but it does let Bard Bowman kill Smaug with a single arrow if that is your bag.
Backstab is an issue. the old double trible quad stuff is too tough. No idea how this was handled after 2nd edition but we said... if you can suprise your opponent from behind and we made that more difficult you had to move silently or be hidden in shadows then they had to fail their suprise check your hit would come straight off their wounds. They were in effect helpless. The old damage bonus mulitplier became a bonus to suprise in this situation. You could not of course use backstab in a combat situation.

Effect on game play
i) Low level. People get wounded but die less often in effect everyone has 4 extra hitpoints. At low level single hits can be leathal a 6 damage will put you down. This means you need to be careful.
ii) Mid level. Guards holding loaded crossbows pointed at your stomach become an actual threat. Any hit round about 10 points is going to hurt critical hits and specialization can lead to death. However, overall the run of weapons on the d6 d8 range will not cause wounds instead they will ablate the hitpoints. The rapid recovery of hit points means you don't need to carry 10 potions of healing or drag a cleric round with you. We do faith based clerics with restricted spell pools so in general gods of healing give out healing spells but are crap at everything else and no one wants to play one. Suddenly a team of theives or assassins or barbarian raiders don't need to rely on magical healing. And clerics can role play spell choices rather than fitting a template healer role. Magic users don't suddenly become lethal with Fireball. 8d6 off your hits is actually a little less scary than 1d8 +5 with a chance to wound and kill. An 8th level fighter with 50 hit points can take 8d6 and it will not wound him it will fry a big chunk of his hit points mind. a d8 +5 can deal 13 damamge that would be 10 absorbed off hit points and 3 wounds.
iii) High Levels - damage spells no longer rule the roost. They really just ablate the Hitpoint pool. This means Wizards are no longer as overpowered as they once were and have to rethink how they do magic to its best effect which makes for more creative play and better roleplaying. Again after a fight the 18th level figher no longer needs to lie down for 3 months to recover. You don't have to have healing poitions and clerics as a given essential which leaves you with more options to do other stuff. The 18th level figher with 90 hitpoints rarely gets injured fighting low level oponents he can absorb 18 points from any one hit. However his hit pioints still ablate so in prolonged combat he is only 1 hit stronger than he was in the old hitpoint system as in effect he has an extra 4 (well usually 6 with con bonus) hitpoints. But a crit hit from a Dragon is ging to hurt....

We used this for about 4 years in a cycle where the two lead characters were a theif and a barbarian and it made adventures playable without recourse to the streotypical healing cycle.
You do have to have a long think about how you deal with critical damge though as in this area a 4th or 5th level character is about as strong as a 1st level guy in the old rules but a hit for double damage on a 1st level thief was always a risk they could ill afford
You can play with the base number of wounds if you like your PCs to live longer more rewarding lives. Up it to 6 or even 8 ... but that i think would be a stretch.
You an also play with stuff like poisons, save or take x wounds, falls 1 wound per 10 feet or save for 1/2 ..deadly :-) and all sorts of other stuff.
As I say we played with specific wound details and penalties for wounds but book keeping got onerous so we dumped it.

Just an idea that radically alters the entire game :-)

Quote from: jibbajibbaWell we all know D&D hitpoints are stupid

Who is this "we" you speak of? A lot of people who play D&D - I'd guess the majority - don't think that.

Quote from: ColonelHardissonWho is this "we" you speak of? A lot of people who play D&D - I'd guess the majority - don't think that.

You they're the ones... they surely must realise that their beloved hitpoint system is illogical and in no way internally consistent...

You did read the rationale for this statement before you posted didn't you ? would hate to htink you might have just commented on a statement without reading its basis :)

If you can defend the classic hp system and can couter the arguements , especially the time it takes to heal back to full HP and the whole what happens if I am shot with a crossbow bolt from 10 feet away.. then I would love to hear it :)

Oh NOH!

A Runequest-Fanboy argument STILL used after 30 years!

No Hate Runequest. Didn't mind the Elric makeover...
I like Hit points as an Idea but just think you need to explain how they work... full details posted above please read before tarring me with a lable :)

Some good bits in there. :)

Quote from: WotCOn top of all that, the game added a complex state of being at exactly 0 hp, which wasn't quite like being fully capable but also wasn't quite dying. Honestly, though, how often does any character actually get reduced to exactly 0 hp? Why did the game need a condition that existed at exactly one spot on the big, broad range of hit point possibilities?

At lower levels this happens a lot more frequently.  If you have 3 hit points and a monster attacks for 1d4 damage, you're at 0 hp 25% of the time.  However, since this style of game is no longer included in the game it makes sense to remove supporting rules, which probably includes the 0 hp rule.

Quote from: WotCSide note to all those would-be game designers out there: When you hear yourself making that claim, you might be in danger of losing touch with reality. Sometimes you're right, and your innovative game design concept just needs a little time to sink in. (The cycling initiative system used by 3rd Edition D&D is a good example of that—back in 1999, some very vociferous playtesters were convinced that it would ruin D&D combat forever. Turned out that wasn't exactly true.) But every time you convince yourself that you know better than the people playing your game, you're opening the possibility of a very rude (and costly) awakening.

:haw:

Quote from: WotCCharacters still use a negative hit point threshold to determine when they move from "unconscious and dying" to "all-the-way-dead," but now that threshold scales with their level (or more specifically, with their hit point total). A character with 30 hit points (such as a low-level cleric) dies when he reaches -15 hit points, while the 15th-level fighter with 120 hp isn't killed until he's reduced to -60 hit points.

180 hit points? At level 15... which is more like old D&D level 10... That's a TON of hit points.  Like... Palladium mecha level. ;)

Quote from: WotCThat may seem like an unreachable number, but it's important to remember that monsters, like characters, aren't piling on as many attacks on their turn as in 3rd Edition. At 15th level, that fighter might face a tough brute capable of dishing out 25 or 30 points of damage with its best attack... or nearly twice that on a crit. The threat of "alive-to-negative-everything" on a single hit remains in play, but it's much less common than in the previous edition. That puts that bit of tension back where it belongs.

Okay, so if you divide it all by 10... 12 hit points... dead at -6... monster does 2-3 damage, twice that on a crit.  Interestingly, that's the same basic formula as low-level D&D.

Quote from: WotCMonsters don't need or use this system unless the DM has special reason to do so. A monster at 0 hp is dead, and you don't have to worry about wandering around the battlefield stabbing all your unconscious foes. (I'm sure my table isn't the only place that happens.)

While that would actually be more believable / realistic, I think it's a good design decision to just have monsters out of play at 0 hp :)

Quote from: WotC3) If you're dying at the end of your turn, roll 1d20.
Lower than 10: You get worse. If you get this result three times before you are healed or stabilized (as per the Heal skill), you die.
10-19: No change.
20: You get better! You wake up with hit points equal to one-quarter your full normal hit points.

"It's Just a Flesh Wound!" :haw:

I would have gone with a d6 50/50 (because d6 roll nicer than d20, and you don't need the d20 for a 50/50 roll) and dropped the natural 20 bit -- or give the player the option: "Stay down, or get up... but your at 1 hp and if you get hit again you're more likely to "die" etc. If it was tied to your constitution somehow, then it would be a d20 + constitution modifier.

Quote from: WotC4) If a character with negative hit points receives healing, he returns to 0 hp before any healing is applied.
In other words, he'll wake up again with hit points equal to the healing provided by the effect—a cure light wounds spell for 7 hp will bring any dying character back to 7 hp, no matter what his negative hit point total had reached.)

5) A dying character who's been stabilized (via the Heal skill) doesn't roll a d20 at the end of his turn unless he takes more damage.

Both very good. :)

I'm not sure about the artificially inflated numbers, but the system seems good.

Play GURPS if you want a "realistic" handling of hit points. Otherwise there is nothing wrong with how D&D handle hit points.

the problem with house ruling D&D is that the system has little else to defend you against being one shotted by a crossbow bolt. In GURPS, Runequest and other games of the type, the high level character is defined by his skill. So while a crossbow bolt may kill the hero, it would be hard to get a clear shot in combat.

D&D hit points are stupid.  But they're the kind of stupid that gets the job done.  Personally, I prefer hit points plus the occasional graphically and mechanically elaborate critical hit.  Not "double damage" but more like "oops, you're ear just got chopped off.  +5 damage and -4 to all Listen rolls".  But if I have to choose either stupid hit points or fiddily mechanics, I choose stupid hit points.

Quote from: StuartOkay, so if you divide it all by 10... 12 hit points... dead at -6... monster does 2-3 damage, twice that on a crit. Interestingly, that's the same basic formula as low-level D&D.

This was my understanding, that they were going to aim for the preceived damage/HP ratio sweetspot to happen all the way along the levels, from top to bottom.  To keep the tension up but not too high.

QuoteI would have gone with a d6 50/50 (because d6 roll nicer than d20, and you don't need the d20 for a 50/50 roll)

Yeah but they've branded D&D as d20. They made that die nearly synonomous with the D&D, from a marketing POV. The default is to use a d20. *shrug*

Quote from: jrientsD&D hit points are stupid.  But they're the kind of stupid that gets the job done.  ... But if I have to choose either stupid hit points or fiddily mechanics, I choose stupid hit points.

But the healing time and the requirement to drag a cleric round with you or have magical healing. Conan, Grey Mouser, Robin Hood, Arthur, Lancelot, Rolland, Beowulf... these guys didn;t chug back potions of healing every 5 minutes or drag a saint round with them to stand at the back of a fight calling down the power of the lord every time they flagged.....

These mechanics are not that fiddly really I promise :)

To Live and Die in 4E. I'm getting a bit worried. Is the game becoming more crunchier ?

Regards,
David R

Quote from: jrientsD&D hit points are stupid.  But they're the kind of stupid that gets the job done.  Personally, I prefer hit points plus the occasional graphically and mechanically elaborate critical hit.  Not "double damage" but more like "oops, you're ear just got chopped off.  +5 damage and -4 to all Listen rolls".  But if I have to choose either stupid hit points or fiddily mechanics, I choose stupid hit points.

I prefer Harnmaster's system where injury degrades your ability to act effectively via a minus to your skills. All the other horrendous results are from failed saving throws (modified negatively by how much injury you take). Horrendous results can include shock, unconsciousness, death, amputation, bleeding, etc.

For example a shot in the vitals from a crossbow may require nothing, a shock throw, or a death throw depending on how much damage was done. In all cases a bleeding throw is required and if failed which means you will keep taking injury until treated or healed.

Again Hit Points is a simple to use and understand mechanic that gets the job done.

QuoteIf you can defend the classic hp system and can couter the arguements , especially the time it takes to heal back to full HP and the whole what happens if I am shot with a crossbow bolt from 10 feet away.. then I would love to hear it

The classic hp system works (you *aren't* shot with the crossbow -- you dive out of the way!) but the following associated systems aren't as smooth:  armour, healing.

Quote from: David RTo Live and Die in 4E. I'm getting a bit worried. Is the game becoming more crunchier ?

Regards,
David R

http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4024580&postcount=29

Probably depends on what you mean by crunchier and how you measure it. Personally I can live with more "crunch" if it moves faster and stays out of the way more. :)

Quote from: StuartThe classic hp system works (you *aren't* shot with the crossbow -- you dive out of the way!) but the following associated systems aren't as smooth:  armour, healing.

Yeah, it isn't so much that HP are 'stupid'. It is that the game has never really treated HP consistantly throughout. And the confusion of WTF HP actually are rubs off on players. If the game can't figure it out why should we expect players to?

Quote from: jibbajibbaBut the healing time and the requirement to drag a cleric round with you or have magical healing. Conan, Grey Mouser, Robin Hood, Arthur, Lancelot, Rolland, Beowulf... these guys didn;t chug back potions of healing every 5 minutes or drag a saint round with them to stand at the back of a fight calling down the power of the lord every time they flagged.....

Like I said -- that's not a problem with hit points... it's a problem with healing. ;)

Quote from: WOTC...we and other designers proposed various models that tried to solve the conundrums set out above, varying from exceedingly abstract to witheringly simulationist.

Emphasis mine.

They actually used a GNS term.  Fourth edition is going to be awesome :rolleyes:

Quote from: joewolzEmphasis mine.

They actually used a GNS term.  Fourth edition is going to be awesome :rolleyes:

That word has a professional use too. http://www.site.uottawa.ca/~oren/pubs/D81_Code.pdf

That's probably even more accurate to what they are talking about. EDIT: Ok, maybe not so much. Since what is thought of as simulation by gamers is a more a perversion. So who knows exactly what they are talking about.

But this idea of people trying to create some sort of simulation out of a game existed long before GNS's [ill defined] version hit the web.  If I saw that line and had never heard of the Forge, directly or indirectly, I'd have a rough idea of what he was saying. I did long before I came here and heard of the Forge (and I never went to RPG.net before coming here).

Quote from: StuartLike I said -- that's not a problem with hit points... it's a problem with healing. ;)

Exactly that was why I came up with this system (that and the Crossbow.... :) )

Quote3) If you're dying at the end of your turn, roll 1d20.
Lower than 10: You get worse. If you get this result three times before you are healed or stabilized (as per the Heal skill), you die.
10-19: No change.
20: You get better! You wake up with hit points equal to one-quarter your full normal hit points.

Here's the part of the system I particularly like: no longer being able to make cold calculations about how long you can leave a friend bleeding out on the floor. Maybe he'll survive a few more turns, or maybe you need to get there now now now if you're going to be able to save the guy (especially if your first aid is low enough that you reckon you might need a couple of attempts to stop the bleeding). You just don't know, and so you have to assume the worst. Makes having someone drop in combat be a genuinely scary turn of events.

3) If you're dying at the end of your turn, roll 1d20.
Lower than 10: You get worse. If you get this result three times before you are healed or stabilized (as per the Heal skill), you die.
10-19: No change.
20: You get better! You wake up with hit points equal to one-quarter your full normal hit points.

This is very poor ... If you were a 15th level fighter with 120 (how many !!!) hitpoints and you managed to randomly roll a 20 you are up on 30 hp ... ummm ... so equivalent to what say 2 weeks bed rest or a Cure serious wounds ...

Quote from: StuartOkay, so if you divide it all by 10... 12 hit points... dead at -6... monster does 2-3 damage, twice that on a crit.  Interestingly, that's the same basic formula as low-level D&D.

"But this one goes to 11."

But remember that monsters do more damage in 4E (as far as I can tell, to make the unconsciousness maths work more neatly). That 30HP? One hit could take you straight down to 0 again! It's like having 3HP in an older version of the game or something.

I like it. It means that the player rolling has something to hope for beyond getting a "no change", and it nicely simulates the possibility of a character merely being stunned, and regaining consciousness to fight anew. In fact, when you think about it, this is precisely the sort of thing you'd expect from a system where hit points represent luck, circumstances, and ability to avoid crippling damage, as well as capacity to take damage.

4E might be the first edition of D&D where that old chestnut is actually true.

Quote from: Haffrung"But this one goes to 11."

Yeah, it is basically the same thing as having a fixed [per PC] length damage track and super-duper killer monsters doing approximately the same damage range as a Kobold using a sharp stick.

Only the numbers are bigger, and change every time you level up. So you've got more bookkeeping to do.

Maybe that'll be what happens with 5e, they say "well if you divide everything by the level it's all the same so maybe we should just do a fixed damage track". :D

so the PC hit points have gone up and the monsters do more damage... so basically its all much as it was before except more maths?

From I have 24 hp at 4th level and mosters do d8+2 to I have 48 hp and monsters do 2d8+4 ....

Also if you are goign to argue that waking up with 1/4 hp back represents being stunned then just add a mechanic to stun ..

Paladin (hp70 so prolly 2nd or 3rd level...) rushs scary looking dragon. Dragon rolls a critical does 80 hp of damage. DM describes how the jaws grip round the knight and fling him from his steed throwing him to the ground some 20 feet away.. Party now terrified of new might of 4e Dragons..
Paladin on -10 hp rolls a 20 and gets up back to 18 hp and shouts 'its just a flesh wound, come back here and I'll kick you to death!'.
Funniest of all he can take 2 more hits be on 2 hp then get knocked unconscious again roll another 20 then be back up to 18 hp again ....

Or Barbarian has just worked his way through about 40 goblins to get to their chief. He has been prodded, poked and maimed and is down on 5hp out of 90
The chief throws a spear does 15 damage ... a palpable hit with a spear by a goblin... the barbarian dgoes down. The Goblin chief goes into a little goblin dance cos he slew the great Barbarian... who rolls a 20 gets up on ... 23 hp that is the level he was at an hour ago ... go figure ....

As someone who has been concerned about 4e, I have to say the mechanical aspect of this is not bad. I think the best part of the article was the advice on how to get a similar feeling by house-ruling 3.x - a nice little piece of work there.

Here's the only problem - all the bullshit around it.  Honestly, I'm beginning to think that perhaps the problem will not be so much with the mechanics of the game, but with the "designer notes" around it. They could have made the very same points, the very same mechanical explanation, and excluded all of the subjective stuff and it would have been a much better article.

And to Haffrung's point in other threads - this is a perfect example of a certain kind of feel/style/etc. being encoded in the rules. It's not one that bothers me, personally, overmuch - but when people ask how the feel is being changed, you can point right the fuck here.

Quote from: James J SkachHere's the only problem - all the bullshit around it.  Honestly, I'm beginning to think that perhaps the problem will not be so much with the mechanics of the game, but with the "designer notes" around it. They could have made the very same points, the very same mechanical explanation, and excluded all of the subjective stuff and it would have been a much better article.

It'd also be a much shorter article. If the editor of Dragon asked you for a 3000 word article on the unconsciousness mechanic in 3.X you'd need to fluff it up a lot too.

Quote from: jibbajibba... so basically its all much as it was before except more maths?

Not exactly, no. They made the levels below and above 4 to 10ish (or 12?) have roughly the same peril to PCs as that low to mid-range did in 3e. Or something like that.

Quote from: WarthurIt'd also be a much shorter article. If the editor of Dragon asked you for a 3000 word article on the unconsciousness mechanic in 3.X you'd need to fluff it up a lot too.

Especially since they would expect it started and finished in a single day.

I don't know, Warthur.  First of all, that article (at least as posted here) is only 1939 words - so the bar wasn't quite as high as you mentions. Second, really?

I mean, you couldn't find at least 5 ways to bring the fluff without the bullshit like:

QuoteWe've talked elsewhere about some of the bogus parallelism that can lead to bad game design—such as all monsters having to follow character creation rules, even though they're supposed to be foes to kill, not player characters—this is just another example of the game escaping that trap. Sure, a DM can decide for dramatic reasons that a notable NPC or monster might linger on after being defeated. Maybe a dying enemy survives to deliver a final warning or curse before expiring, or at the end of a fight the PCs discover a bloody trail leading away from where the evil warlock fell, but those will be significant, story-based exceptions to the norm.

What purpose does this serve? Could it be replaced with some small bits of text sprinkled throughout that did more to explain the effects of the changes and possible alternate rules that had been considered? IMHO it's all an unnecessary slam at people who might like the monsters being treated the same.

Like I said, the more I re-read the text, the more I think they are actually on to something good with these changes - the first thing I've seen that I actually might like. But they really need to get a handle on the editing...IMHO...

Quote from: James J SkachWhat purpose does this serve?

It says "this is why we did what we did." If it wasn't there people would be bitching that they weren't being told why things were done.

Quote from: James McMurrayIt says "this is why we did what we did." If it wasn't there people would be bitching that they weren't being told why things were done.

No it isn't, Jimmy.  Look again - it has almost nothing to do with hit points and/or dying.  It's a completely unnecessary tangent about how in their opinion it's a good choice that monsters aren't treated the same (I mean, come on, they are just there to be killed, right?).

EDIT: The meaningful text about why is handled pretty well - better than most previous articles - but it's done further up in the what was wrong and what they were after text.

They'd do well to stop sharing their philosophies of which versions of D&D they think suck, and instead just focus on why they think this version is cool.  If they need to fluff up their text, add some little narrative descriptions about what all these numbers and stats represent.  Make a little scenario where Ragnar the Barbarian is facing off against the Black Spawn Kobold and they're smashing each other for 30,000 and/or 3 hit points of damage. :)

I sort of feel sorry for them. :raise:

Quote from: James J SkachNo it isn't, Jimmy.  Look again - it has almost nothing to do with hit points and/or dying.

It explains in part why monsters don't follow this rule. It might be a stupid thing to say (although I actually agree with it) but it definitely applies to the article.

The random bleeding out looks similar to the Death Save in CP2020, and it definitively a.) adds tension, b.) makes it a good idea to drop everything and provide first aid ASAP and makes going down scary and c.) gives the player of a knocked out PC at least a die roll to do each round.
I like it.

I think it's also a good idea to remove a unique condition for just 0HP, that comes up rather seldom and doesn't necessarily require its special condition, so it can probably be savely removed without much lost.

The sudden 1/4 HP recover on a natural 20... Well, that looks bizzarre, to say the least, even more so if mundane First Aid can't accomplish the same amount of healing.

Quote from: Skyrockgives the player of a knocked out PC at least a die roll to do each round.

3e already has a version of this, the stabilize roll. What it didn't have is the spring back to life with a truckload of HP and the automatic dead clause, instead you lose a single HP for each failure (and stop rolling when you succeed). But they probably changed it since in 4e sometimes you can be unconcious and lose a huge number of HP before you hit your negative limit.

Oh, and in 3e the roll was modified by the Con bonus.

The spring back to life on a 20 does look wierd. Although maybe it isn't out of line with the other healing rules since we haven't seen those yet.  Remember that in 3e you regained your level in HP/day. Usually not quite 1/4 of your total HP, but for Wizards it often close to 1/4.

Quote from: SettembriniOh NOH!

A Runequest-Fanboy argument STILL used after 30 years!

I'm certain at this point that if Settembrini's skull was caved in by a rock- his last breath would be used to complain that that was soooo 10,000 years BC.

But I will have to say it's very modern of him to feel that age of and by itself removes truth, or at least makes saying it unnecessary.


I'm also amused by anyone who takes HP seriously enough to object to the planned 4E solution as One Horse Town did.

QuoteIf hit points are this big mash up of skill, luck, morale etc, then you can easily justify the different hit dice folks are getting. But once you're unconscious, how do these abstractions still come into play?

Really now?

I mean we've given an abstraction that in no way defines what percentage of the total consists of any of these factors and no reason to believe that they remain constant in that percentage through out the range of HP...

...and it's like the most abstact abstraction one could come up with in the first place...

And THAT is the disagreement one raises?

Either someone is latching on any possible floating object in a storm, or there's a interesting paper that should be published about how people greatly overthink trival matters of passing importance.

But hey, at least the latter would explain the Forge.

Listen brian.

HPs serve a purpose since Fletcher Pratt.

As a tool for gaming.

The HP critique of the prototypical RQian idiot is even more lame as it stems from a severe misunderstanding of what the purpose of D&D is.
I say this to you as an avid Harnmaster and Millenium´s End player.

Just as Fletcher Pratt´s Game was attacked by the same ilk of twats for having ablative HPs as being unrealistic.

All those debates have been waged before any of us was born. And there is no new insight to be gained.
It seperates the thinking man from the fool that he honours past debates. It´s no shame to be uninformed. It´s a shame to make a virtue out of it.

And this does not say the issue has been settled in a way that one side would be right and the other wrong. But all arguments have been laid out time and time again.

Honestly I´m pretty annoyed by you lately. Instead of deep insight you present us with sophomoric quips and "I-know-what-Tolkien-is-RILLY-about" shit that is undeserving of your renown. And that you wrap all this shit in passive-aggressive "politeness" doesn´t help at all.

Quote from: jrientsD&D hit points are stupid.  But they're the kind of stupid that gets the job done.  Personally, I prefer hit points plus the occasional graphically and mechanically elaborate critical hit.  Not "double damage" but more like "oops, you're ear just got chopped off.  +5 damage and -4 to all Listen rolls".  But if I have to choose either stupid hit points or fiddily mechanics, I choose stupid hit points.

What he said.

[Colbert]
D&D sells more than every other game combined. The market has spoken: hit points are the best of all available options.

Moving on.
[/Colbert]

Quote from: SettembriniListen brian.

HPs serve a purpose since Fletcher Pratt.

As a tool for gaming.

Indeed, it serves and serves well as a one possible tool for a certain type of gaming. There is a reason it's all but universal in computer gaming for example.

The old HP debates were really about what tool was suited for type of gaming- except that people from both sides didn't quite understand that they were talking about different things at the "type of game" point.

This lead them to call each others things like "prototypical RQian idiot" instead of actually examining the mechanics, it's reasons, advantages and limits. Which is exactly what you did in your post. And exactly why you drew my fire. You've learned nothing from the past debates and developed no ability to improve yourself in future ones.

There is great value in "debates have been waged before any of us was born", anyone who has studied just about any serious field would know that. Assuming they looked up long enough to apply their knowlege to more than their studies. Just as they would know that revisiting them with the advantage of hindsight can provide new windows of knowledge.

Instead you're like a man telling the Wright Brothers "debates about flight have been waged before any of us was born", so get back to building bicycles.

I feel sorry for you, but you are funny in a sad way- and oh such a great example at times.

Quote from: gleichmanThis lead them to call each others things like "prototypical RQian idiot" instead of actually examining the mechanics, it's reasons, advantages and limits. Which is exactly what you did in your post. And exactly why you drew my fire. You've learned nothing from the past debates and developed no ability to improve yourself in future ones.

I can only assume that you didn't realize who it was you're replying to. If you'll check the username you'll realize why this is no big surprise, and may decide to save yourself some hassle by just pointing, laughing, and moving on.

Quote from: James McMurrayI can only assume that you didn't realize who it was you're replying to. If you'll check the username you'll realize why this is no big surprise, and may decide to save yourself some hassle by just pointing, laughing, and moving on.

Just think of it as one of those shock videos used for driver training courses. Trying to scare other people into driving carefully by drawing atention to the gory details of what happens to people that don't.

Quote from: James J SkachI don't know, Warthur.  First of all, that article (at least as posted here) is only 1939 words - so the bar wasn't quite as high as you mentions. Second, really?

I mean, you couldn't find at least 5 ways to bring the fluff without the bullshit like:

Why is this particular fluff worse than any other fluff the guy could have pulled out?

QuoteWhat purpose does this serve? Could it be replaced with some small bits of text sprinkled throughout that did more to explain the effects of the changes and possible alternate rules that had been considered? IMHO it's all an unnecessary slam at people who might like the monsters being treated the same.

Aren't you being terribly thin-skinned here? He's contrasting the design philosophy behind 4E with that of 3.X. Why must you take every design decision so personally?

Quote from: James McMurrayI can only assume that you didn't realize who it was you're replying to. If you'll check the username you'll realize why this is no big surprise, and may decide to save yourself some hassle by just pointing, laughing, and moving on.

That's sort of what I did in my first post, which I guess I shouldn't have so I apologize for the moment of weakness.

This however I found interesting upon reflection:

Quote from: SettembriniHonestly I´m pretty annoyed by you lately. Instead of deep insight you present us with sophomoric quips and "I-know-what-Tolkien-is-RILLY-about" shit that is undeserving of your renown. And that you wrap all this shit in passive-aggressive "politeness" doesn´t help at all.

I rather liked that thread.

No, not for any display of "I-know-what-Tolkien-is-RILLY-about". Anyone who thought I was there for that doesn't understand me very well.

But rather for some of the insights it gave me into how people here approach certain things.

-The 'deflation' of High Fantasy for example and the general distain many hold for it.

-many aren't interested in the events (let alone the themes) of settings- but more its physical existence. What I would call Tourist play seems very strong here and in the hobby as a whole.

-no one significantly engaged a connection between the rules and setting.

-it took a great deal of effort to get people to actually answer why they chose the systems they did.


All very interesting to me.

Quote from: blakkie3e already has a version of this, the stabilize roll. What it didn't have is the spring back to life with a truckload of HP and the automatic dead clause, instead you lose a single HP for each failure (and stop rolling when you succeed).

"Within 1 hit of being knocked out again" isn't "a truckload of HP" by my book, and the article clearly implies that unless the characters are fighting individuals which PCs of their level would be mortally embarrassed to lose a fight to, 25% of your current HP is going to be within 1 good hit of being knocked out again.

Quote from: gleichmanI'm also amused by anyone who takes HP seriously enough to object to the planned 4E solution as One Horse Town did.



Really now?

I mean we've given an abstraction that in no way defines what percentage of the total consists of any of these factors and no reason to believe that they remain constant in that percentage through out the range of HP...

...and it's like the most abstact abstraction one could come up with in the first place...

And THAT is the disagreement one raises?

Either someone is latching on any possible floating object in a storm, or there's a interesting paper that should be published about how people greatly overthink trival matters of passing importance.

But hey, at least the latter would explain the Forge.

Dude, i don't take them that seriously. Really.

My post there boils down to a previously mentioned design goal of the new edition. This takes in the 3x hit points at first level and giving every class cool things to do in combat.

The first is to get rid of the 'wizard killed by 1 hit by a kobold' and the second to engage peeps interest evenly in combat. However, if you then say that the fighter with more hits survives longer after unconscousness (basing it on hit points) than the wizard, then all you're doing is putting the disparity somewhere else. Either lessen the gap overall, or not, not a bit of both.

Quote from: One Horse TownThe first is to get rid of the 'wizard killed by 1 hit by a kobold' and the second to engage peeps interest evenly in combat. However, if you then say that the fighter with more hits survives longer after unconscousness (basing it on hit points) than the wizard, then all you're doing is putting the disparity somewhere else. Either lessen the gap overall, or not, not a bit of both.

I think if one takes "engage peeps interest evenly in combat" as a primary goal, the first question to ask is "how is it justified to have different HP values between classes" in the first place.

After that, I would expect the same answer would apply to why unconscious Wizards die easier.

I still think it should come down to Constitution. :D  Easily house ruled though.

Quote from: WarthurWhy is this particular fluff worse than any other fluff the guy could have pulled out?

Because it's unnecessarily tangential and includes stuff that could insult people who like monsters to follow the same rules.  I mean, I know it's all hip and cool to think of monsters as Mooks and BBEG and shit, but it's not what everyone likes. A good editor with an eye towards PR might very well pull the possibly inflammatory test...ya know...just to be sure.

Quote from: WarthurAren't you being terribly thin-skinned here? He's contrasting the design philosophy behind 4E with that of 3.X. Why must you take every design decision so personally?

Personally? Who said anything about personally? I think back to my old 1e days and I don't think we gave this issue a thought.  I mean, the physics of the world worked the same for monsters, usually adjudicated by the GM - but that's about as deep as I worried about it. 3.x, however, is king of balancing this stuff in this way.  I like both games.  So how am I taking this personally?

Quote from: WotCWe've talked elsewhere about some of the bogus parallelism that can lead to bad game design—such as all monsters having to follow character creation rules, even though they're supposed to be foes to kill, not player characters—this is just another example of the game escaping that trap.

See, here's the problem: you can express that design decision - it's a perfectly valid choice and, apparently, appeals to a significant portion of the gaming community - without harshing on the guy who likes the other way. There's no need to talk about how it's "bogus," "bad game design," or a "trap."

If I were one who felt strongly about the "bogus parallelism," I might just take offense.  I'm guessing Bradford does (from previous comments of his).

Contrast that with the "what we hated' which talks about how the current system left them unsatisfied - and explained it in technical terms about why they were unsatisfied with the situation, what effects were against the design goals (some of which I disagree with, BTW, but did not find as...rude...as some previous PR releases). Done much better, IMHO, YMMV, etc.

Quote from: gleichmanIndeed, it serves and serves well as a one possible tool for a certain type of gaming. There is a reason it's all but universal in computer gaming for example.

The old HP debates were really about what tool was suited for type of gaming- except that people from both sides didn't quite understand that they were talking about different things at the "type of game" point.

That´s what I´m saying. And that´s why it´s correct to call bullshit on that RQian-fanboy moronosity. Because it´s them who never accepted or understood D&D (or Fletcher Pratt´s Naval Wargame for that matter, or the appeal of BattleTech etc.). Just look at Lef Lafayette for a revisitation of the harm caused by those types. Of course, RQ has fans that are not of that ilk. That goes without saying.

As to the rest of your post: thanks for proving my other points. You started  ad-hominem attacks against me, again. I´ll not respond to that any more than I already did.

Bye.

Quote from: Warthur"Within 1 hit of being knocked out again" isn't "a truckload of HP" by my book, and the article clearly implies that unless the characters are fighting individuals which PCs of their level would be mortally embarrassed to lose a fight to, 25% of your current HP is going to be within 1 good hit of being knocked out again.

You know, this whole 'scale the system such that equal levels produce the same outcome' that is a hallmark of 4E strikes a very familar memory with me.

I explored that very question back in 1980 and ended up creating my own homegrown rules to manage it. D&D HP based resource management seemed a very crude mechanic to attempt such an end with.

It also brings other interesting questions to the table that your statement of "which PCs of their level would be mortally embarrassed to lose a fight to" brought to mind. It seems inherit to me that such a balance would further expand the power gulf between levels in D&D.

I abandoned escalating HP completely as a result of my attempts (athough this was but one factor behind that). I'm rather curious as to how 4E will manage it.

Not curious enough to buy it, but I hope to see the details somewhere.

Quote from: James J SkachContrast that with the "what we hated' which talks about how the current system left them unsatisfied - and explained it in technical terms about why they were unsatisfied with the situation, what effects were against the design goals (some of which I disagree with, BTW, but did not find as...rude...as some previous PR releases). Done much better, IMHO, YMMV, etc.

I really wish people would take it for granted the "what we hated" == "left them unsatisfied". I mean, the word "we" is in the first one you know?

I think your point about some people wanting PCs, NPCs and Monsters to be treated the same is much more sound. Any design will have to address this issue and will disappoint those who hold the opposite of their final opinion.

It is however not a complex issue to correct this with a house rule, and I see no reason why a designer should avoid saying where they came down on the issue in the first place. It certainly points out to the buyer what he needs to change.

Quote from: SettembriniThat´s what I´m saying. And that´s why it´s correct to call bullshit on that RQian-fanboy moronosity. Because it´s them who never accepted or understood D&D (or Fletcher Pratt´s Naval Wargame for that matter, or the appeal of BattleTech etc.).

Let me translate:

"It's always the other guys who never accepted or understood... bah... bah... bah... and I can paint anyone I like with the same brush based upon a single post without asking a single question of them."

You just lost all creditability there, but I don't think there was much to lose.

Quote from: James J SkachBecause it's unnecessarily tangential and includes stuff that could insult people who like monsters to follow the same rules.  I mean, I know it's all hip and cool to think of monsters as Mooks and BBEG and shit, but it's not what everyone likes. A good editor with an eye towards PR might very well pull the possibly inflammatory test...ya know...just to be sure.

Oh, come on now. It's only inflammatory if you're going through the article with a fine toothcomb looking for something to be offended by. You're being incredibly thin-skinned about this.

Quote from: Warthur"Within 1 hit of being knocked out again" isn't "a truckload of HP" by my book, and the article clearly implies that unless the characters are fighting individuals which PCs of their level would be mortally embarrassed to lose a fight to, 25% of your current HP is going to be within 1 good hit of being knocked out again.

Within 1 good hit. As in at the top end of the damage that could be done. Ok, "truckload" is somewhat a hyperbole but it isn't a small amount either since it looks like you could survive a few hits that didn't do maximum damage.

Quote from: blakkieWithin 1 good hit. As in at the top end of the damage that could be done. Ok, "truckload" is somewhat a hyperbole but it isn't a small amount either since it looks like you could survive a few hits that didn't do maximum damage.

Except it's been stated over and over again in 4E that combat will usually be against multiple opponents as opposed to a single one, so you're within one good hit from a single opponent, or a couple of average hits from two opponents - either way, one unlucky combat round from unconsciousness.

@brian:

I´d like to point out that you feel the need to repeatedly make slurring comments against me as a person. I wonder why.

Let´s look at the heart of the argument:

Yes, the blind-sightedness is on the "RQian" side of the argument. The D&D side is (maybe oblivious) playing their game. The need to seperate and distinguish themselves from D&D brought some people to attack the HP as a mechanism.

I´ve never ever seen anyone coming to a RQian place attacking their way of doing things.

So, the real problem lies in the motivation of the attack against HP. It´s like some of  the "atheist missionaries" who right now are active in America.

Quote from: WarthurOh, come on now. It's only inflammatory if you're going through the article with a fine toothcomb looking for something to be offended by. You're being incredibly thin-skinned about this.

Considering these aren't random blog posts, but rather articles posted on their official site as part of their official marketing efforts, not showing more diplomacy is a mistake... OR... it's not a mistake, and for whatever reason they've decided the best strategy is to point out all the failings of past editions (eg. 3.x) so that people will want to buy the new and improved edition (4.x).  Which I think will also prove to be a mistake because people will be inclined to look elsewhere instead.

Quote from: Settembrini@brian:

I´d like to point out that you feel the need to repeatedly make slurring comments against me as a person. I wonder why.

HA HA HA! Oh, hyporisy. Thou name art Settembitchi.

Quote from: gleichmanIt also brings other interesting questions to the table that your statement of "which PCs of their level would be mortally embarrassed to lose a fight to" brought to mind. It seems inherit to me that such a balance would further expand the power gulf between levels in D&D.

I abandoned escalating HP completely as a result of my attempts (athough this was but one factor behind that).

You just went down the path of natural conclusions faster. I assume they are having 4e stopping at the "escalating damage to match the HP escalating" stage because escalating damage is OVER THE TOP, LET'S-GET-READY-TO-RUMBLE-IFIC! Which probably isn't a bad read of a good portion of the gamers that would have trouble with the damage number from a Kobol using a dagger and a Troll using a dagger being equal instead of just equivalent.

P.S.  To some other poster up above, yes there is a reason that computer games use HP. Because for a computer 'tis no big thing to handle the tracking and adding/subtracting of mulitple digit numbers. Yet often they don't display it to the user like that. They'll show a bar graph guage of some sort, sometimes as series of little icons that each can be whole, part, or empty depending upon where you are at on the guage.  When you get more total HP the bar stays the same size. Because that's more universally quick to grasp.

Quote from: WarthurExcept it's been stated over and over again in 4E that combat will usually be against multiple opponents as opposed to a single one, so you're within one good hit from a single opponent, or a couple of average hits from two opponents - either way, one unlucky combat round from unconsciousness.

Oh yeah, sure you can go down. But it's still a matter of likely two or more hits to take you down again.

If you are being swammed or not isn't particularly relavent. Sometimes you are in deep crap and sometimes you aren't.

It just still feels a bit wierd to me at first pale. This popping back up like that. *shrug*

Quote from: Settembrini@brian:

I´d like to point out that you feel the need to repeatedly make slurring comments against me as a person. I wonder why..

And well you should.

Quote from: SettembriniI´ve never ever seen anyone coming to a RQian place attacking their way of doing things.

You haven't? Have you wondered why?


Note: The above comments are not meant to be snide although they work well that way. They are meant to be a serious question.

People (all people, I include myself here) tend to wonder why but only consider those answers that put themselves in a good light. Asking the question from other PoVs (including those outside the debate) can produce interesting insights even if those answers are in the end not correct. And can overcome errors of bias when they are.

And I think at this point I can leave off further responses to our friend Settembrini with respect to this specific thread's question. There are more interesting things being said here.

Quote from: gleichmanI think if one takes "engage peeps interest evenly in combat" as a primary goal, the first question to ask is "how is it justified to have different HP values between classes" in the first place.

Excellent question. In the original model of D&D the fighters fought, so they got the big HPs. Now everybody fights - just in different ways. So if WotC are putting the pneumatic drill to sacred cows, why not get rid of differentiated HP? What purpose do they serve in a superheroic tactical battle game?

Quote from: blakkieTo some other poster up above, yes there is a reason that computer games use HP. Because for a computer 'tis no big thing to handle the tracking and adding/subtracting of mulitple digit numbers.

Building on this...

Non-RPG dice games are exciting because you know if you win/lose immediately after rolling the dice.  The WIN! / LOSE!  moment happens as soon as the dice stop rolling.

In many RPGs, as well as dice-based wargames, the WIN! / LOSE! moment doesn't always happen when the dice stop rolling.  It's often after someone does a little bit of math.  You can get that immediate WIN! / LOSE! moment -- but only if you did the math ahead of time and did some addition AND subtraction.

This may seem like a minor thing, especially if you've had a long history of playing and enjoying games like this, but for non-gamers it's significant.  If you want to broaden the appeal of your game, you need to cut down on the amount of math.

Quote from: blakkieYou just went down the path of natural conclusions faster. I assume they are having 4e stopping at the "escalating damage to match the HP escalating" stage because escalating damage is OVER THE TOP, LET'S-GET-READY-TO-RUMBLE-IFIC!

Not a bad way to read the hints being dropped. Certainly makes sense. People are impressed by numbers and tend to ignore scale.

Quote from: WarthurExcept it's been stated over and over again in 4E that combat will usually be against multiple opponents...

WtF? So the designers are going so far as to decide the number of opponents DMs should include in their encounters to make the system run properly? So I have to structure my entire setting and campaign world on the mathematical foundation of tactical combat?

Hey, it would kind of cool if I had a crazed Hill Giant living in that abandoned tower. Oh wait, the system presumes multiple opponents for the math to work right, so I'd better throw in a couple ogre sidekicks - oops, I mean Mooks.

So you can do anything with 4E that you did with other editions - it just that the system won't work properly. Nice.

gleichman:
While I more often don't agree with Settembrini then I'm agreeing to him, I have to defend his objection of Jibbajabbas criticism.


What Jibbajabba did was to take a value system towards that D&Ds hitpoint mechanism were never calibrated - the question "Does is simulate reality accurately and believeable?"
If that is what you are after, HPs of course fall so flat on their arses that they could be stabbed with a thoroughly rotten towel. But realism, believeability, simulation or whatever you wish to call it was never the reasoning behind the use of HPs.

What happens here is something I've seen to often - to assume that simulation has to be a top priority of all gaming, every player and every system, and conclude from this that everything that fails in this regard must a be total failure for every and all gaming.

Quote from: StuartBuilding on this...

Non-RPG dice games are exciting because you know if you win/lose immediately after rolling the dice.  The WIN! / LOSE!  moment happens as soon as the dice stop rolling.

In many RPGs, as well as dice-based wargames, the WIN! / LOSE! moment doesn't always happen when the dice stop rolling.  It's often after someone does a little bit of math.  You can get that immediate WIN! / LOSE! moment -- but only if you did the math ahead of time and did some addition AND subtraction.

This may seem like a minor thing, especially if you've had a long history of playing and enjoying games like this, but for non-gamers it's significant.  If you want to broaden the appeal of your game, you need to cut down on the amount of math.

That's another part of the reason why I've tossed my GM screen. There really is no need to hide the numbers the players are rolling against. They know before they roll what they have to hit. They know, at least in general terms if not in specifics, what's going to happen next when they fail and what'll happen if they succeed.

Having them tell me a number and then I have to decide if it makes it or not and what happens is in my experience generally not an excitement builder but instead an excitement killer.

Quote from: HaffrungWtF? So the designers are going so far as to decide the number of opponents DMs should include in their encounters to make the system run properly? So my entire setting and campaign world has to be structure around the mathematical principles of the tactical combat?

I think this is slightly unfair.

Any game system has baseline balance like this in place although some designers never bother to determine what it actually might be. To the final buyer, I'm not sure that a conscious attempt to determine a 'baseline' really matters.

That doesn't mean that the end user must use the same baseline or even be aware of it.

This does however mean that 4E has a different combat balance than previous editions such that certain battles will have different outcomes. However I thought that was the upfront intent.

Quote from: Skyrockgleichman:
While I more often don't agree with Settembrini then I'm agreeing to him, I have to defend his objection of Jibbajabbas criticism.

I agree with you that one could reasonably object to Jibbajabbas criticism in the method you employed. I wouldn't contest that and it might result in Jibbajabbas understanding HP systems and their goals better (or might not but the option has been offered).

I object to Settembrini's method of objection. He came across as a irrational hater of things RQ instead of someone who understands the history of the debate and where people are coming from as you just did. He did himself and fans of HP systems no service other than bad service.

Quote from: HaffrungWtF? So the designers are going so far as to decide the number of opponents DMs should include in their encounters to make the system run properly? So I have to structure my entire setting and campaign world on the mathematical foundation of tactical combat?

Or you could just put the encounters together however you like, and then use the rules to work out what sort of character level it'd make a suitable challenge for, so when the players come across it you have some idea of whether it'll be a cakewalk, a challenge, or so difficult you may wish to drop a few hints that this encounter is Serious Business.

You know, like in every other edition.

Haffrung: Dude, you don't just jump to conclusions, you seem to be shooting for an Olympic Gold Medal in the Pole Vault right over the motherfucker's catagory.

'Cause, you know, its not like my old Monster Manual doesn't tell me that dragons usually come in singles and Orcs usually ride in gangs of 10-100 or anything....

Quote from: Stuart...articles posted on their official site as part of their official marketing efforts...

They are? I admit, I don't visit WotC's site often, so maybe I've missed them saying, "These blogs are part of our official marketing campaign."

They certainly could be that. Or they could be part of a plan to keep the fans appraised of what's happening with the game. They could be part of a plan to explain why design choices were made without taking up space in the rulebooks. And so on.

Or they could be - and here's something that happens quite a bit in the real world - the result of a designer turning to his boss and saying, "Say, blogs are cool. Let's do some." And the boss says, "Sure! Spiffy!" The marketing department actually finds out about the blogs after they're already up. As they're designer blogs and because they're in marketing and not IT, the marketing folks don't get any real say about the blogs, what's said in them, how it's said, etc..

So, yeah, the blogs could be an official marketing campaign - or they could just be an example of the types of things that marketing folks have to deal with in coporate America.

Seanchai

Quote from: gleichmanI really wish people would take it for granted the "what we hated" == "left them unsatisfied". I mean, the word "we" is in the first one you know?

I think your point about some people wanting PCs, NPCs and Monsters to be treated the same is much more sound. Any design will have to address this issue and will disappoint those who hold the opposite of their final opinion.

It is however not a complex issue to correct this with a house rule, and I see no reason why a designer should avoid saying where they came down on the issue in the first place. It certainly points out to the buyer what he needs to change.

Mr. Gleichman - Am I reading you right that you think I had a problem with the "What we hated" section? Cause if that's the case, no, I don't have a problem.  My point was it was done much better than the Monsters are not PC's text.

I have no problem with their decision, as I said before. It's the characterization of the other preference as bad design and a trap. Contrary to Warthur's opinion that I'm "thin skinned," I'm just looking at it with a critical eye.  Given my opinion of previous releases, this one is positively wonderful even with this one, IMHO, blemish. So, take it for what it's worth...

Quote from: SeanchaiSo, yeah, the blogs could be an official marketing campaign - or they could just be an example of the types of things that marketing folks have to deal with in coporate America.

The article in the OP wasn't, strictly speaking, a designer's personal blog post. It was an article on the official WotC website in the Dragon section, which makes it just about as official as any article about D&D can get.

Quote from: SpikeHaffrung: Dude, you don't just jump to conclusions, you seem to be shooting for an Olympic Gold Medal in the Pole Vault right over the motherfucker's catagory.

'Cause, you know, its not like my old Monster Manual doesn't tell me that dragons usually come in singles and Orcs usually ride in gangs of 10-100 or anything....

Sir Spike, canst thou not see that these knaves enjoy the drink of hyopcrisy far too much to bear to have it parted from their lips? Gygax is their Arthur, ye old D&D their round table. Let them sup their overwrought sup of melodrama before they must face the bastard childe WotC - also known as Mordred in the south - on the 4e fields of Camlann.

Seanchai

Quote from: WarthurThe article in the OP wasn't, strictly speaking, a designer's personal blog post. It was an article on the official WotC website in the Dragon section, which makes it just about as official as any article about D&D can get.

Blog. Article. Same diff.

I just finished working at an organization that not too long ago started putting up podcasts on its website. Those of us in the Communications and Marketing Department literally found out about it when the Digital Services Department, who was producing the podcasts, submitted an article about them for our patron newsletter. They soon followed up their podcasts with video reviews. And, of course, our department had literally no say in even the text that appeared on the website - we didn't write it, edit it, etc.. Naturally, we had as much say and were able to provide as much direction for the podcasts and videos.

So they stuff we're seeing could absolutely be part of some marketing strategy or plan. Or the marketing folks could find out about it when it goes public.

Seanchai

Quote from: gleichmanI agree with you that one could reasonably object to Jibbajabbas criticism in the method you employed. I wouldn't contest that and it might result in Jibbajabbas understanding HP systems and their goals better (or might not but the option has been offered).

I think I understand HP systems pretty well ... as you get more experience you get more hit points and bigger scary monsters do more damage.. right ?

So in theory .. a fight between an orc and a 1st level fighter, an Ogre and a 4th level fighter and a dragon and a 15th level fighter all carry the same degree of risk. Is that how it works , moreorless? I might be missing some of the nuances...

The system I wrote up above, and that I have used for years with a fair degree of success, uses um .. oh I know hit points, that was it and they are ... the very same hit points that everyone else uses.

The only reason I get annoyed is when people tag me with a label without having bothered to actually read anything I wrote. Quite happy to deal with critism, provided its informed critism.

And just 'cos something is popular doesn't mean its the best if that were true then McDonalds, Big Brother and the Sun Newspaper would all be winning awards.

Quote from: James J SkachMr. Gleichman - Am I reading you right that you think I had a problem with the "What we hated" section? Cause if that's the case, no, I don't have a problem.  My point was it was done much better than the Monsters are not PC's text....

Ah, my fault for misreading it then.

Quote from: James J SkachGiven my opinion of previous releases, this one is positively wonderful even with this one, IMHO, blemish. So, take it for what it's worth...

For what it's worth (I haven't followed 4E that closely and don't have a horse in the race in any case), I agree with you here. I don't see anything horrid about 4E. Just a few interesting choices in design that makes me wonder how it will turn out.

Quote from: jibbajibbaAnd just 'cos something is popular doesn't mean its the best if that were true then McDonalds, Big Brother and the Sun Newspaper would all be winning awards.

[Colbert]
You cannot argue with the market, sir.
[/Colbert]

Weird Math.

This means every character has an almost 10% chance of getting up again after being knocked out mid-battle in the first three rolls.

It also means that all charcters have an almost 87% chance of dying after being knocked into -HP in the first three rolls.

That's incredibly deadly.

Quote from: KrakaJakIt also means that all charcters have an almost 87% chance of dying after being knocked into -HP in the first three rolls.

That sounds really off. I think it's slightly less than 1 in 8 to die in three rolls. You need three rolls of 10 or less (without rolling a 20 at any point) to die. To get three out of three is 1/2 * 1/2 * 1/2, with that small chance you won't even make it to the third roll because you got a 20 in roll #1 or #2 so somewhat less than 1 in 8.

Once you get out to 6 rolls, without getting a 20, things do start looking really bleak. But that's a long time on the ground. In 3e you were likely dead by then unless you happened to have just nosed over the line when you fell.

I can do up a spreadsheet later if you think I'm off here?

Quote from: StuartThe classic hp system works (you *aren't* shot with the crossbow -- you dive out of the way!) but the following associated systems aren't as smooth:  armour, healing.

I think the bigger problem with hit points lies in using them for things that you can't dive out of the way of, like falling damage and fire damage.  I'm not buying that my character dodged the bottom of the pit. :rolleyes:

That said, both problems could possibly be solved with two ranges of hit points, the luck and skill part and the flesh and blood part.  Having healing spells and things like falling damage apply to the flesh and blood part while some other form of "healing" restores the luck and skill part.  In fact, you could potentially go right to the flesh and blood damage for characters who are bound, sleeping, etc. and it would keep things like pit traps and falling off of the roof something that even high level characters would have still to worry about, thus keeping terrain and traps interesting and plausible.  In some ways, Hero already does this with Stun and Body.  Probably more trouble than many people care to keep track of, but the problems really aren't all that difficult to solve.

Quote from: John MorrowThat said, both problems could possibly be solved with two ranges of hit points, the luck and skill part and the flesh and blood part.  Having healing spells and things like falling damage apply to the flesh and blood part while some other form of "healing" restores the luck and skill part.  In fact, you could potentially go right to the flesh and blood damage for characters who are bound, sleeping, etc. and it would keep things like pit traps and falling off of the roof something that even high level characters would have still to worry about, thus keeping terrain and traps interesting and plausible.  In some ways, Hero already does this with Stun and Body.  Probably more trouble than many people care to keep track of, but the problems really aren't all that difficult to solve.

That's close to how d20 Star Wars (non=SAGA) handled it. You had Vitality and Wounds, with Vitality being ability to avoid or mitigate damage. Crits went straight to Wounds, which were a lot harder to heal with medicine or the Force.

Quote from: jibbajibbaYou they're the ones... they surely must realise that their beloved hitpoint system is illogical and in no way internally consistent...

Uh...huh?

Quote from: jibbajibbaYou did read the rationale for this statement before you posted didn't you ? would hate to htink you might have just commented on a statement without reading its basis :)

Yeah, I read it, just like I've read plenty of other such rationalizations of it over the past almost-30-years. I don't see your system as being any more "realistic" than any number of rationalizations of straight hit points. :shrug: If you like your way, cool. Just don't expect everyone else to think it's anything more than yet another set of house rules that are neither more nor less "realistic" than any others. The guys I was gaming with in 1979 came up with a rationalization as to why hit points made sense, and I've yet to see anyone provide a system that made me go "OMG I've seen the light - straight hit points=garbage!"

Quote from: jibbajibbaIf you can defend the classic hp system and can couter the arguements , especially the time it takes to heal back to full HP and the whole what happens if I am shot with a crossbow bolt from 10 feet away.. then I would love to hear it :)

They're quick, fun, and don't unnecessarily complicate the game. Anything else bores me and isn't fun to play. Again, YMMV :shrug:

Quote from: SeanchaiThey are? I admit, I don't visit WotC's site often, so maybe I've missed them saying, "These blogs are part of our official marketing campaign."

It's not just part of their official marketing campaign, what they post there legally represents the company.

Quote from: SeanchaiOr they could be - and here's something that happens quite a bit in the real world - the result of a designer turning to his boss and saying, "Say, blogs are cool. Let's do some." And the boss says, "Sure! Spiffy!" The marketing department actually finds out about the blogs after they're already up. As they're designer blogs and because they're in marketing and not IT, the marketing folks don't get any real say about the blogs, what's said in them, how it's said, etc..

That was fairly common for companies about 10 years ago.  Only very small or dysfunctional companies would be operating like that now.

Quote from: SeanchaiI just finished working at an organization that not too long ago started putting up podcasts on its website. Those of us in the Communications and Marketing Department literally found out about it when the Digital Services Department, who was producing the podcasts, submitted an article about them for our patron newsletter. They soon followed up their podcasts with video reviews. And, of course, our department had literally no say in even the text that appeared on the website - we didn't write it, edit it, etc.. Naturally, we had as much say and were able to provide as much direction for the podcasts and videos.

So they stuff we're seeing could absolutely be part of some marketing strategy or plan. Or the marketing folks could find out about it when it goes public.

I'm in a marketing / communications office as well, and if one of our departments were to put up content similar to what the staff at WotC have been doing, I'd been on the phone with them and it would be taken offline, then we'd get together and chat about how to do things better and/or we'd do it for them instead.

I really have a hard time imagining that WotC's marketing department isn't in control of what appears on their website.

Quote from: John MorrowI think the bigger problem with hit points lies in using them for things that you can't dive out of the way of, like falling damage and fire damage. I'm not buying that my character dodged the bottom of the pit.  

That's a great example!  

The pit problem was something I gave a lot of thought to for my game, and I eventually decided:  if you fall in the pit, you're dead.  So if you're not dead... you didn't fall in the pit. ;)

Quote from: ColonelHardissonThey're quick, fun, and don't unnecessarily complicate the game. Anything else bores me and isn't fun to play. Again, YMMV :shrug:

Also there are numerous ways to interpret HP, house rule them etc....I think this is an advantage and not necessarily a flaw.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: StuartThat was fairly common for companies about 10 years ago.  Only very small or dysfunctional companies would be operating like that now.

It's the gaming industry. Have you seen some of the things these companies say and do?

Quote from: StuartI'm in a marketing / communications office as well, and if one of our departments were to put up content similar to what the staff at WotC have been doing, I'd been on the phone with them and it would be taken offline, then we'd get together and chat about how to do things better and/or we'd do it for them instead.

That's a great plan if they care to listen or if you have the power to make them listen. If you don't...well...

Quote from: StuartI really have a hard time imagining that WotC's marketing department isn't in control of what appears on their website.

Shrug. They might be.

Of course, as I said, we weren't. We were a 20 million dollar a year organization, 350 people strong, and had 6 people in our department, including one of the 5 vice presidents in the organization and a manager. The web was moved to the Digital Services Department because the CEO didn't understand that it was a marketing tool and not just a bit of technology. Our ability to have any control over what went up on it went with it.

But, really, is it such a stretch to think maybe marketing doesn't have a large role in the blogs, articles, etc.? You keep bringing it up for the same reason I keep suggesting maybe they're not part of an official marketing campaign or their strategy - they're not terribly effective/good/strategic.

Seanchai

Quote from: SeanchaiIt's the gaming industry. Have you seen some of the things these companies say and do?

Hasbro is a very large publicly traded company.  Since WotC is a subsidiary of Hasbro, it's unlikely they run themselves in the same way a 1 or 2 person business might.

Quote from: SeanchaiBut, really, is it such a stretch to think maybe marketing doesn't have a large role in the blogs, articles, etc.?

Well, it's a pretty big stretch... and it would explain the poor job they've done so far.  But ultimately the public doesn't care which internal department these people are working in -- when they post content on the company website, they're representing the company in an official capacity.  

And there's been enough different people saying the same message for me to believe that it's something they're saying very deliberately, and someone has given them instruction on what to say, and what *not* to say.

that 'springs back to life' rule is fine, whoa hand of fate, don't call it a comeback, can nothing stop him.

still not gonna buy it though !

Regarding the original Design essay from the OP:

This is the least offending thing I´ve read so far. There´s some good reasoning behind this.

Alas, it´s built on some of the weird assumptions regarding low-level power level, but viewing this as a given, I can live with what they are doing now.

Only the "try it now!" part puzzles me: That looks overly fiddly and not actually fun to implement.

What I also don´t understand is the hostility against the weird Zero HP special case. I´ve always liked that. EXACTLY zero hit points, always a fun thing!

The rationalize it away, like it caused problems. They talk about it as if such an irregularity would somehow spoil the buty of the whole system. An alien thought regarding RPGs.

Why the need to have such streamlining, when the chrome didn´t interfere with the game?

Zero HP specail status was always a nice chrome element that did not do harm.

Quote from: blakkieThat sounds really off. I think it's slightly less than 1 in 8 to die in three rolls. You need three rolls of 10 or less (without rolling a 20 at any point) to die. To get three out of three is 1/2 * 1/2 * 1/2, with that small chance you won't even make it to the third roll because you got a 20 in roll #1 or #2 so somewhat less than 1 in 8.

Once you get out to 6 rolls, without getting a 20, things do start looking really bleak. But that's a long time on the ground. In 3e you were likely dead by then unless you happened to have just nosed over the line when you fell.

I can do up a spreadsheet later if you think I'm off here?

Yeah...sorry...I meant 12%. Major typo on my part.

It's strange, you have almost an equal chance of dying as getting back up, I thought that was pretty deadly for a D&D game. All in all, this is the first change in D&D 4e that I can say I am all for it!

Back to the OP.  I think their logic behind why they needed to address the dead and dying rules.  They really haven't done much to actually solve what creates the problem in the first place.  This is pretty much just a bandage solution that I've seen in house rules often enough already.  The only new idea was their 1-9/10-19/20 roll to see if you die/get better.  It still does nothing to fix the fundamental flaws of the D&D Hit Points mechanic in the first place.

For the love of...

Hit points - they work. They are abstract. They can represent both physical damage adn the ability to reduce a blow/dodge a crossbow bolt. Falling damage can be the physical part. Crossbow damage can be dodge. At the end of they day they are a simple mechanic which fits the game.

PR/eariler edition bashing - did it ever occur to some people that WotC might genuinely believe, having looked at both the way most people play the game and the way in which they develop new products, that PC monster parity in rules is a bad idea? Is it that inconceivable to suggest that designing monsters according to a rigid advancement system originally designed for PCs requires an unnecessary amount of additional work for no significant reward? Perhaps WotC are making comments about poor design because in their professional experience those comments are true. Hell, they may even be repeating them because they've seen the level of scepticism from the "I want evewy mwonster to be spweshul" crowd and think it's advantageous to stress the benefits of the new design thinking.

The new death and dying rule - me likey. The recovery on a 20 is just the effect of a critical save, I imagine it'll give players something to hope for and will undoubtedly make a memorable difference in a few fights. Memorable fights where a PC survives near death and saves the day are fun. I'm guessing fun is a good thing for a game to provide.

Quote from: TrevelyanPerhaps WotC are making comments about poor design because in their professional experience those comments are true.

Some us us are making comments about poor PR because in our professional experience those comments are also true. ;)

Quote from: StuartHasbro is a very large publicly traded company.  Since WotC is a subsidiary of Hasbro, it's unlikely they run themselves in the same way a 1 or 2 person business might.

If Hasbro watches over WotC to that degree, sure. But I doubt they do. As you know, Hasbro purchased WotC not for D&D, not because they were doing well, not because they were king of the hill, but because they wanted the Pokemon license. Also, I read Hasbro's annual report to the public/stockholders a couple of years back - WotC's contribution to Hasbro's income was tiny and WotC was literally just a footnote in the report.  

But it's not just the one or two person businesses in the RPG industry who make bad PR mistakes.

Quote from: StuartWell, it's a pretty big stretch...

One of the things some of the employees at the organization I was talking about wanted was their own blogs. I did some research into blogs, marketing with them, etc. Many companies are choosing not to use them and one of the top concerns listed was loss of control over what's said. Employee blogs are damaging companies' image and PR efforts.

I don't think it's a huge stretch. I don't know if you read AdAge, but marketing executives in it are always bemoaning their fate, claiming that they're not listened to, don't have resources or power, etc. As I've personally lived throughed situations like those, I don't doubt it. So I don't doubt the possibility of a scenario where a marketing department doesn't get say over blogs, what's put up on the web, etc..

And about the blogs at my old organization. We recommended against it, as the folks who wanted them wanted them because they were hip and cool, we were afraid they wouldn't be updated or would contain...less than helpful information, and because we already were using tools that were like blogs. Can you guess how the situation was resolved? We started getting articles for our employee newsletter: "Come read my new blog!" and "We've created a new blog for the children's area - please let the public know about it!"

Naw, I'm not bitter...

Quote from: StuartBut ultimately the public doesn't care which internal department these people are working in -- when they post content on the company website, they're representing the company in an official capacity.

I agree with you there.

But, comparitively, I don't think the things the designers are saying are that terrible. It's not the most strategic communication I've come across, but, again, if some smoe said the same thing prior to the announcement of 4e, people would either agree or ignore it.

I think people are taking such umbrage at the things the WotC folks are saying because they want to. They're not stung deeply - they're getting off on being drama queens.

But my point is that what we're seeing isn't necessarily a marketing strategy on WotC's part. Hell, they don't need to advertise. I think what we're seeing is designers deciding to let D&D fans know about why they chose what they chose before 4e comes out. Personal blogs, etc., are probably not a course of action the marketing department chose, but rather something they're living with.

Quote from: StuartAnd there's been enough different people saying the same message for me to believe that it's something they're saying very deliberately, and someone has given them instruction on what to say, and what *not* to say.

The anti-4e crowd all says pretty much the same things. Are you saying that there must be someone behind the scenes, telling you what to say? Or could you possibly have come to the same conclusions independently?

Here's another possiblity: The designers work together. They're a team. They have team meetings. They all discussed what had come before, came to a consensus about what they wanted to change, and are now taking turns informing the public about their decisions.

Seanchai

Quote from: StuartSome us us are making comments about poor PR because in our professional experience those comments are also true. ;)

No, you are making those comment because in your personal experience as fans of earlier editions you resent the implication that those editions may be less than perfect. I notice that the views of the professional PR people on this thread aren't unanimous.

If A is better than B, actually objectively better, then does it not make sense when publicising A to mention that it has a feature which improves on something that didn't work as well in B?

If someone introduced a car with a new engine and mentioned the fact that this new design of engine worked better than old engines, and in fact some of the thinking behind old engine design actually made those engines less efficient than the new engine would it be bad PR to mention this fact? Or should the motor company keep quite about the advantages of the new engine for fear of upsetting the guys with the old car?

I like the new rule, but I'll wait to see the full combat system.

Quote from: KrakaJakIt's strange, you have almost an equal chance of dying as getting back up, I thought that was pretty deadly for a D&D game. All in all, this is the first change in D&D 4e that I can say I am all for it!

I've lost a character to bleeding out in 3e. Although admittedly it was special circumstances, and it involved the DM coming up with me having to make 3, count 'em THREE, consecutive CON checks. I made the first two. :what:

I've also seen a number of bleed out deaths. Though I can't say exactly what it was percentagewise, it was usually another PC helping that saved the unconcious person and it was usually quite urgent. Waiting for the end of the battle would have been very dangerous.

Quote from: TrevelyanNo, you are making those comment because in your personal experience as fans of earlier editions you resent the implication that those editions may be less than perfect. I notice that the views of the professional PR people on this thread aren't unanimous.

If A is better than B, actually objectively better, then does it not make sense when publicising A to mention that it has a feature which improves on something that didn't work as well in B?

If someone introduced a car with a new engine and mentioned the fact that this new design of engine worked better than old engines, and in fact some of the thinking behind old engine design actually made those engines less efficient than the new engine would it be bad PR to mention this fact? Or should the motor company keep quite about the advantages of the new engine for fear of upsetting the guys with the old car?

Your first mistake is in assuming that their approach is objectively better.  It's an argument I'm not going to have here - you want it, start another thread and we'll see. But I've seen no objective proof that the Monsters-shouldn't-be-treated-the-same as objectively better.

Your second mistake is in assuming that a car company PR machine would allow it to officially call the old style names.  Now I'd be surprised if they didn't point out how the new design gets X more horsepower, or lowers fuel requirements by Y percent.  Note how those are objective facts that can be measured. But I doubt they'd call the old design approach a "trap," or "bogus," particularly if they didn't have the objective proof to back it up.

And still, I'd bet the new Mustang PR did not go about saying the old Mustang was "bogus" design as they understand that would alienate the Mustang customer base.  It might even be objectively true, and they still would endeavor not to say things that could be construed as insulting to the existing Mustang customer base.

Unless, of course, they really didn't care about the existing customer base and were really looking at severing those ties and hoping to gain an entirely different customer base.

Quote from: SeanchaiOne of the things some of the employees at the organization I was talking about wanted was their own blogs. I did some research into blogs, marketing with them, etc. Many companies are choosing not to use them and one of the top concerns listed was loss of control over what's said. Employee blogs are damaging companies' image and PR efforts.

They certainly can, and again it's a sign of a dysfunctional company not to have proper control of their own website.  I've worked with our legal team on a number of issues involving the web, copyright, libel, and content -- a company that lets whoever feels like publishing do so without proper legal disclaimers, explicitly saying something is *not* official, is asking for trouble.

Quote from: SeanchaiAnd about the blogs at my old organization. We recommended against it, as the folks who wanted them wanted them because they were hip and cool, we were afraid they wouldn't be updated or would contain...less than helpful information, and because we already were using tools that were like blogs. Can you guess how the situation was resolved? We started getting articles for our employee newsletter: "Come read my new blog!" and "We've created a new blog for the children's area - please let the public know about it!"

I setup a blog to manage our press releases about 7 years ago now.  We did have some IT employees setup their own blogs at one point.  They successfully petitioned senior admin to have it on a sub-domain of the official site, but only with a big disclaimer, and without the official logo.  Even after that I still had to tell one of them to take down the girly picture he posted (which was brought to my attention after someone complained).  That blog project is now completed. ;)

The key isn't your technical ability or knowledge of publishing material to the web -- it's whether you are authorized to publish material on the official company domain name, and under the official company logo.  These make a big difference in a legal sense -- something I've had reiterated to me by several lawyers.

And all of this aside -- in many cases (like this one) we're not talking about a blog post. :)

Quote from: SeanchaiThe anti-4e crowd all says pretty much the same things. Are you saying that there must be someone behind the scenes, telling you what to say? Or could you possibly have come to the same conclusions independently?

Here's another possiblity: The designers work together. They're a team. They have team meetings. They all discussed what had come before, came to a consensus about what they wanted to change, and are now taking turns informing the public about their decisions.

There isn't a homogenous "anti-4e crowd" -- if you read everyone's comments you'll find a lot of the people you have in the "anti" group are saying there are different things they like about the game -- different things they dislike as well.  I like that magic is being given the Wand / Orb / Staff / ??? breakdown.  I like most of the things in this article -- just not the inflated math and that weird jump back up at 1/4 hit points bit.

As for the common messages from WotC -- Do you listen to the podcast?  Did you see the video from Gen-Con?  They make frequent reference to "things we're not allowed to talk about" as well a s a lot of very standard messaging there, and if you're reading AdAge you should be able to recognize that's not a coincidence. ;)

Quote from: James J SkachYour second mistake is in assuming that a car company PR machine would allow it to officially call the old style names. Now I'd be surprised if they didn't point out how the new design gets X more horsepower, or lowers fuel requirements by Y percent. Note how those are objective facts that can be measured. But I doubt they'd call the old design approach a "trap," or "bogus," particularly if they didn't have the objective proof to back it up.

This is absolutely correct.  Normally, a professional PR strategy would go something like:  "Our old product was good -- but the new product is SOOOO much better".

You don't want to say your old product was bad, or had bad parts -- unless that's something almost everyone in the public was already saying:

"The old Olestra (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olestra) was a good idea -- but it had some pretty bad side effects.  But the new Olestra doesn't have ANY side effects, and is a great product!"

Quote from: StuartThey certainly can, and again it's a sign of a dysfunctional company not to have proper control of their own website.

You're missing the point. This isn't about a company having control of its website, it's about a marketing team or department having control over the website.

Quote from: StuartThe key isn't your technical ability or knowledge of publishing material to the web -- it's whether you are authorized to publish material on the official company domain name, and under the official company logo.  These make a big difference in a legal sense -- something I've had reiterated to me by several lawyers.

Now you're way off topic.

Quote from: StuartThere isn't a homogenous "anti-4e crowd"

Oh, sure there.

Quote from: StuartAs for the common messages from WotC -- Do you listen to the podcast?  Did you see the video from Gen-Con?  They make frequent reference to "things we're not allowed to talk about" as well a s a lot of very standard messaging there, and if you're reading AdAge you should be able to recognize that's not a coincidence. ;)

Let me ask this: If you were controlling the content of the podcast, blog, or whatever, would you have staff making frequent references to "things we're not allowed to talk about"?

I know I sure wouldn't. Kind of makes me think those things aren't part of an organized marketing campaign created and controlled by the marketing team.

Seanchai

Quote from: StuartYou don't want to say your old product was bad, or had bad parts -- unless that's something almost everyone in the public was already saying:

There is the rub. Most of what they list as problems ring true for me. And a lot of people I know.  I suspect this is more an issue with your perceptions not aligning with the designers and what they are getting as feedback and from their marketing info gathering. Thus their perception of what the majority of D&D customers, and potential customers are saying.

Quote from: SeanchaiLet me ask this: If you were controlling the content of the podcast, blog, or whatever, would you have staff making frequent references to "things we're not allowed to talk about"?

Yes.  "This game is awesome, and we can't wait to tell you more about it!"  "Okay, we just got word we can share how awesome this new dice mechanic is" etc.  That's perfectly fine.

Quote from: James J SkachYour first mistake is in assuming that their approach is objectively better.  It's an argument I'm not going to have here - you want it, start another thread and we'll see. But I've seen no objective proof that the Monsters-shouldn't-be-treated-the-same as objectively better.

Your first mistakeis in thinking that it actually has to be objectively better, when all that matters is that the design guys and consequently the marketing department think that it is. We can safely assume that the design team do think it's better for the simple reason that it's the approach they've taken. If they didn't believe it was the best approach why would they take it?

QuoteYour second mistake is in assuming that a car company PR machine would allow it to officially call the old style names.

Your second mistake is in thinking that WotC have actually been calling 3E names. They've stated that it had problems, but have still insisted that it's a good game.

QuoteAnd still, I'd bet the new Mustang PR did not go about saying the old Mustang was "bogus" design as they understand that would alienate the Mustang customer base.

I rather imagine that they didn't say it because it wasn't necessary. People like upgrading their cars while some people are significantly less eager to upgrade their edition of D&D.

3.5 still works, it doesn't run out and start to fail it's MOT. It will never be subject to increasing running costs. In theory, there is no reason for anyone who already has 3.5 to buy 4E.

So WotC need to stress the ways in which 3.5 doesn't work as well as 4E as part of a strategy to encourage people to swap something that already works and has a lot of supplimental material for something that might work a bit better but has none of that additional material. I don't see how highlighting some of the problems with 3.5 and the ways in which 4e desing theory (since they aren't sharing the details yet the theory is all that's available) improves on that.

It's a rational way to approach the problem.

QuoteUnless, of course, they really didn't care about the existing customer base and were really looking at severing those ties and hoping to gain an entirely different customer base.

Or maybe they just didn't realise how ridiculously thin skinned some of the existing customer base could be. If WotC say 3.5 could have been better how does that directly offend you? Simple answer is that it shouldn't, not unless you're already looking to be offended.

Quote from: TrevelyanYour first mistakeis in thinking that it actually has to be objectively better, when all that matters is that the design guys and consequently the marketing department think that it is. We can safely assume that the design team do think it's better for the simple reason that it's the approach they've taken. If they didn't believe it was the best approach why would they take it?

Really? So now you're moved the goal? I mean, you're actually the one who claimed it was objectively better. If it's not, why would you risk hurting sales by using possibly insulting verbiage about something that is a subjective difference?

Quote from: TrevelyanYour second mistake is in thinking that WotC have actually been calling 3E names. They've stated that it had problems, but have still insisted that it's a good game.

They aren't calling 3e names - they're calling a design approach/play style (heresy!)/preference names. All I've said is that there are people who prefer that systems have Monsters and PC's work the exact same way. 3e happens to have this in abundance, but that's a side issue. Whatever other games out there have a similar approach that some fans might like - well, they've just called their kids ugly, too.

Quote from: TrevelyanI rather imagine that they didn't say it because it wasn't necessary. People like upgrading their cars while some people are significantly less eager to upgrade their edition of D&D.

3.5 still works, it doesn't run out and start to fail it's MOT. It will never be subject to increasing running costs. In theory, there is no reason for anyone who already has 3.5 to buy 4E.

Right - its' not necessary - so why the fuck would you do it? The whole point is it's not necessary and yet they called it bogus anyway.  Why? What good could come of it? Was there a way to say it better? Why would you use terms that some people by find insulting?

Quote from: TrevelyanSo WotC need to stress the ways in which 3.5 doesn't work as well as 4E as part of a strategy to encourage people to swap something that already works and has a lot of supplimental material for something that might work a bit better but has none of that additional material. I don't see how highlighting some of the problems with 3.5 and the ways in which 4e desing theory (since they aren't sharing the details yet the theory is all that's available) improves on that.

It's a rational way to approach the problem.

As I've said - most of this particular text does that in pretty good ways. It stays away from possible insulting words and so forth - I mean, my god, even in a section called "What We Hated" they did a pretty good job of it. So what purpose the digression about Monsters working differently (only a line or two that said "and this won't complicate monsters because, remember, they won't work the exact same as PC's in this version!" would have sufficed) that includes calling another approach "bogus" and a "trap?" As Stuart says - it's bad from a PR perspective and seems like the editing from that view is lacking.

Quote from: TrevelyanOr maybe they just didn't realise how ridiculously thin skinned some of the existing customer base could be. If WotC say 3.5 could have been better how does that directly offend you? Simple answer is that it shouldn't, not unless you're already looking to be offended.

This is the old "if you're offended, that's your problem" gambit. It's true to a certain extent, but it leaves all responsibility on good sense and politeness. There are a plethora of places that's perfectly acceptable - like here! - but company PR is not one of them; or shouldn't be.

And please quit making this about me - as I said before I've got no problem with this particular change, the overwhelming majority of the text, and don't have a problem with monsters working differently.  This is not about me, no matter how much you'd apparently like to think it is.

I don't see why WotC doesn't take the approach in their marketing that they're nudging the game in a different direction in response to what today's players want.

Instead, they claim that 4E will do exactly the same thing that earlier editions did, only better. Not only is that simply false, but it basically says that earlier editions were shitty at what they were trying to do (rather than trying to do different things).

Isn't it better to market 4E as a different version of a line of games, rather than a fix of the most recent version? Wasn't 3.5 meant to be the fix?

Funny, I get the "continually improving" vibe from what I read both in substance and tone.  Same game with more refinements building on past refinements that worked but still had some shortcomings.

But then I'm capable of remembering the games I have played in the past. :rolleyes:

Am I the only one who thought of "maximum negative HP = 1/2 maximum HP" solution halfway through the article?

I dunno. I've probably said this before, but it really REALLY needs to be said: anyone that thinks all monsters/opponents MUST work exactly like PC's is not a GM, has probably never really been a GM and probably isn't planning to BE a GM.

Either that or they are filthy Wushu players...








Seriously: The only excuse for a GM to want to grunt out complete character creation rules (plus the Monster shit... cause most 'monsters' are not human, they got their own powers too...) for every opponent is that they are a fucking masochist at heart and enjoy the pain of taking eight hours to plan for a single throw away fight against a pack of goblins...  I, for one, have much better things to do with the free time between games.

As a player? Sure, I don't mind if the GM does all that, heck, I might even appreciate the craftsmanship he puts into his NPC's before I butcher them. And sure, I find it mightily annoying that the NPC's in WoW have access to badassatude my PC will never attain because they don't follow the rules... but that really doesn't apply to tabletop RPGs for a whole raft of reasons.

Quote from: SpikeI dunno. I've probably said this before, but it really REALLY needs to be said: anyone that thinks all monsters/opponents MUST work exactly like PC's is not a GM, has probably never really been a GM and probably isn't planning to BE a GM.

Wrong.  I am a GM, I've been one for nearly 20 years, and I expect to be one for some time to come.  I also expect PCs and NPCs to follow the same rules.

QuoteEither that or they are filthy Wushu players...

Strike Two!

QuoteSeriously: The only excuse for a GM to want to grunt out complete character creation rules (plus the Monster shit... cause most 'monsters' are not human, they got their own powers too...) for every opponent is that they are a fucking masochist at heart and enjoy the pain of taking eight hours to plan for a single throw away fight against a pack of goblins...  I, for one, have much better things to do with the free time between games.

No, I do it to ensure that everything is fair, legal and above-board so that when the players do fuck up they can't shrug it off as bullshit fiat or crap NPC design.  Once I've finished making a NPC, I save it for later reference and will reuse it as required; for everything else, I have online resources (d20 NPC Wiki, for example) or print materials I can repurpose as necessary.  The work may be front-loaded, but once done it stays done; stat blocks are reusable.

QuoteAs a player? Sure, I don't mind if the GM does all that, heck, I might even appreciate the craftsmanship he puts into his NPC's before I butcher them. And sure, I find it mightily annoying that the NPC's in WoW have access to badassatude my PC will never attain because they don't follow the rules... but that really doesn't apply to tabletop RPGs for a whole raft of reasons.

Console, PC and MMORPGs do that for the same reason that those media use a lot of other cheats: they have to do that for technical reasons that don't apply to tabletop RPGs.  That's why the excuse is lame, tired and weak; the constrictions of electronic adventure games don't exist in our analog, tabletop medium so we should not hold to their standard either.

Quote from: Bradford C. WalkerConsole, PC and MMORPGs do that for the same reason that those media use a lot of other cheats: they have to do that for technical reasons that don't apply to tabletop RPGs.  That's why the excuse is lame, tired and weak; the constrictions of electronic adventure games don't exist in our analog, tabletop medium so we should not hold to their standard either.

I still hold you to be a masochist. For example, playing with people that will bitch if their characters don't win based on 'crap NPC design'.  Tell me, Brad... did your dragons, twenty years ago, also use character creation rules or were they just dragons out of the MM?

As for this: I agree, but I felt it unnecessary to explain in detail; which is why I left it out. That does NOT mean that tabletop 'opponents' must be held to a 'higher standard' by any means, however. It just means that there are different reasons for doing things they way they do.

Quote from: jibbajibbaI think I understand HP systems pretty well ... as you get more experience you get more hit points and bigger scary monsters do more damage.. right ?

My point wasn't that you don't understand how the hitpoint mechanic is used in actual play. I think every gamer understands this, and everyone who I've introduced to a system with hitpoints for the first time grasped it immediately, so that I wouldn't claim this seriously.

My point is that you don't understand the reasoning behind the usage of hitpoints instead of more realistic solutions. Where hitpoints are used, realism isn't a high priority - it's more about simplicity and workability, and for this priority, they work absolutely fine.
Not every game is a physics simultion first and everything else second, and not every gamer objects if someone can sport a 10-arrows-piercing in his belly and still be able to run away. (And now of course someone must step into the discussion and point out that in D&D losing 10d6 of 80 hitpoints due to arrow-fire doesn't have to mean that you have actually arrow wounds, and so on and so on, but I think most people here know this 30+ years discussion already quite well.)

Quote from: SpikeI dunno. I've probably said this before, but it really REALLY needs to be said: anyone that thinks all monsters/opponents MUST work exactly like PC's is not a GM, has probably never really been a GM and probably isn't planning to BE a GM.

Exactly. It's often a good idea to have a set of highly detailed PC rules to give the players witheir single game piece a lot of things to do, and the GM something more coarse-grained with less management need so that he can quickly whip up and send out his bunch of faceless orc fighters.

If you want to have everything work after the same rules (what is especially a viable goal if you aim for a more simulating game), you should make sure that you start with the GMs need of managing large hordes of NPCs so that this task can be done easily.

Quote from: blakkieBut then I'm capable of remembering the games I have played in the past. :rolleyes:

Yeah. Being upset about WotC saying that previous editions weren't all that and a bag of chips is made easier by wearing nostaligia-colored glasses.

Seanchai

Quote from: StuartYes.  "This game is awesome, and we can't wait to tell you more about it!"  "Okay, we just got word we can share how awesome this new dice mechanic is" etc.  That's perfectly fine.

In other words, no, you wouldn't have them saying the kinds of things you're saying that they're saying. (That's what I'm saying.) You'd have them approach it differently.

But, really, "There are things I can't talk about," isn't ominious or driven by the marketing department. For example, if you could ask, I'm sure hundreds of playtesters would say, "I can't talk about that." Doesn't mean there's necessarily something wrong, just that there's information not to be revealed.

Seanchai

I like the sound of this new rule. It acknowledges the abstract nature of HP's whilst incorporating a nifty bit of tense randomization.

QuoteMonsters don't need or use this system unless the DM has special reason to do so. A monster at 0 hp is dead, and you don't have to worry about wandering around the battlefield stabbing all your unconscious foes. (I'm sure my table isn't the only place that happens.) We've talked elsewhere about some of the bogus parallelism that can lead to bad game design—such as all monsters having to follow character creation rules, even though they're supposed to be foes to kill, not player characters—this is just another example of the game escaping that trap.

I actually like this; both the stabbing downed foes and the slim chance some poor mook is going to live to crawl off and maybe even level.  Maybe I'm in the minority, and maybe they're right to streamline it for their target audience, but its one more change that tells me I'm not their target buyer.

First some history (emphasis mine)...

Quote from: Trevelyan]PR/eariler edition bashing - did it ever occur to some people that WotC might genuinely believe, having looked at both the way most people play the game and the way in which they develop new products, that PC monster parity in rules is a bad idea?

Quote from: James J SkachYour first mistake is in assuming that their approach is objectively better. It's an argument I'm not going to have here - you want it, start another thread and we'll see. But I've seen no objective proof that the Monsters-shouldn't-be-treated-the-same as objectively better.

Quote from: TrevelyanYour first mistake is in thinking that it actually has to be objectively better, when all that matters is that the design guys and consequently the marketing department think that it is.

Now back to today...

Quote from: James J SkachReally? So now you're moved the goal? I mean, you're actually the one who claimed it was objectively better. If it's not, why would you risk hurting sales by using possibly insulting verbiage about something that is a subjective difference?

I think you'll find that you are mistaken when it comes to what I did and did not actually claim. :rolleyes:

As for the rest, the whole point about WotC believing that their approach is better is that they believe itis objectively better whether it is or not. Hence they abse their approach on that assumption.

QuoteThey aren't calling 3e names - they're calling a design approach/play style (heresy!)/preference names. All I've said is that there are people who prefer that systems have Monsters and PC's work the exact same way. 3e happens to have this in abundance, but that's a side issue. Whatever other games out there have a similar approach that some fans might like - well, they've just called their kids ugly, too.

In this specific instance they've criticised a design approach, but in the apst they've been accused of directly insulting past editions. My point was mean to cover all of those cases as well.

Looking at the specific monster design point, the fact that people like their ugly kids does nothing to alter the fact that those kids are ugly. "Some people like that" is no reason not to say "That has problems which this new thing does not have". The reason you don't insult people's ugly kids is because there is a reasonable expectation that those parents won't take it too well. I see no reason to assume that people would get equally defensive of a game. Hell, WotC are even insulting their own past practices. If they are prepared to turn around and say "we, as a company, fucked up in the past, but now we've found a better way to do it" they why should everyone else take it so personally?

QuoteRight - its' not necessary - so why the fuck would you do it? The whole point is it's not necessary and yet they called it bogus anyway.  Why? What good could come of it? Was there a way to say it better? Why would you use terms that some people by find insulting?

Again, why is it reasonable to assume that reasonable people would find it insulting in the first place? And as for the unreasonable people, they're going to be insulted whatever you say.

Quote from: SaladmanI actually like this; both the stabbing downed foes and the slim chance some poor mook is going to live to crawl off and maybe even level.  Maybe I'm in the minority, and maybe they're right to streamline it for their target audience, but its one more change that tells me I'm not their target buyer.

Did you not read what you quoted? It says that monsters don't use the bleeding system UNLESS the GM has some special reason to do so. You have a special reason - you like post-fight stabbing and the chances of mooks crawling off to come back another day - so you can use it.

First some history (emphasis mine)...

Quote from: TrevelyanIf A is better than B, actually objectively better, then does it not make sense when publicising A to mention that it has a feature which improves on something that didn't work as well in B?

There, sir, is your "objectively better" goal past. Unless, of course, there a rule that says I can't reply to posts that weren't directed at me (that's from a response to Stuart).

Now back to today...(I'll leave out the roll-eyes)

Quote from: TrevelyanAs for the rest, the whole point about WotC believing that their approach is better is that they believe itis objectively better whether it is or not. Hence they abse their approach on that assumption.

I'm not sure if I get you here, but it seems your saying even is A is A, it's ok for WotC to insult people who believe A is A because they genuinely believe A is B. Is that right?   I find it hard to believe that's your position, but whatever provides buoyancy to your water craft. Of course, I'm not claiming A is A or A is B.  I'm saying it's a subjective argument, so you can't claim either.

Quote from: TrevelyanLooking at the specific monster design point, the fact that people like their ugly kids does nothing to alter the fact that those kids are ugly.

Here, sir, is the crux of the issue. Because a PR department, usually, does everything it can to make sure that people don't feel you've just called their kids ugly - whether they are or not. That's their fucking job - to assume the worst possible reading of something like that and adjust it accordingly to accomplish not calling someone's kids ugly - whether they are ugly or not.

Yeah, it's a game.  It's also a business.  In business, you don't do this stuff - not if you don't want to risk collateral damage to your product from things which very well could have little to do with the quality of your product.

Could they have commented on Monsters-as-PC's?  Absolutely - I'd expect them to if changing approach.  It's the means, not the ends...

Quote from: TrevelyanAgain, why is it reasonable to assume that reasonable people would find it insulting in the first place? And as for the unreasonable people, they're going to be insulted whatever you say.

Because that's the job of a PR/Marketing department. Unless, of course, you take the attitude that you could give a fuck about those customers. And therein lies the rub.

Okay, I havent read all 10 other pages, but after reading the OP post, i'm fully disgusted with the new hit point thing. It's sloppy AND lazy in my opinon, and ... im pretty speachless about it at this point.

Ill be back for a full and complete review soon.

Quote from: James J Skach

Quote from: trevelyanIf A is better than B, actually objectively better, then does it not make sense when publicising A to mention that it has a feature which improves on something that didn't work as well in B?

There, sir, is your "objectively better" goal past. Unless, of course, there a rule that says I can't reply to posts that weren't directed at me (that's from a response to Stuart).

Now back to today...(I'll leave out the roll-eyes)

Seriously? The post you quote above is where I was speculating as to the mindset of WotC. It's clear if you read that post in context that I'm not stating my own views on the matter. My own views were clearly and unambiguously expressed in the post which I mentioned early and which was directed at you.

QuoteI'm not sure if I get you here, but it seems your saying even is A is A, it's ok for WotC to insult people who believe A is A because they genuinely believe A is B. Is that right?

No, I'm saying that if WotC genuinely believe that A (different monster creation rules) is better than B (monsters using PC creation rules) then there is nothing wrong with saying that A is better than B. If someone who likes B takes that to mean "you suck forever and so do all your friends" then that's a problem with the player, not with WotC.

QuoteHere, sir, is the crux of the issue. Because a PR department, usually, does everything it can to make sure that people don't feel you've just called their kids ugly - whether they are or not.

But at the same time, there are some people who will insist that you just insulted their baby, their wife, their honour or any other thing simply because they like a fight. At some point it is no longer effective to pander to their insecurities at the cost of promoting a product to people who are capable of behaving a little less emotionally.

QuoteYeah, it's a game.  It's also a business.  In business, you don't do this stuff - not if you don't want to risk collateral damage to your product from things which very well could have little to do with the quality of your product.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that I very much doubt WotC will suffer financially because a few people over react to the PR. In the long run most of the nay-sayers are going to buy this game (que the litany of people swearing that they won't touch it with a 10' pole)

QuoteBecause that's the job of a PR/Marketing department. Unless, of course, you take the attitude that you could give a fuck about those customers. And therein lies the rub.

If for "those customers" you mean "those customers who have decided to be predisposed to objecting to anything that WotC say" then I'm inclined to agree with them.

Quote from: TrevelyanSeriously? The post you quote above is where I was speculating as to the mindset of WotC. It's clear if you read that post in context that I'm not stating my own views on the matter. My own views were clearly and unambiguously expressed in the post which I mentioned early and which was directed at you.

That's a nice try - really.  I mean, I'd be at a loss too if I was quoted as saying the very thing I said I didn't do.  But that quote and the surrounding text from that post make no mention of WotC's mindset. In fact, the point is it raised the bar from your earlier "if WotC believes it's better" point.  go ahead and read your posts, in order.  If you honestly can't see how you inserted "objective better" into the debate, I can't really show you any other way.

As to your views - well, it's got really nice language like "'I want evewy mwonster to be spweshul' crowd." Which makes it clear your disdain for someone who might think that way. I don't have a dog in that fight, so I'll let Mr. Walker discuss that with you if he so chooses. In case you've missed it, I've specifically said I'm not exclusively of one mind or another about it. IMHO I think it might behoove them to allow for both options - as mentioned in the "if a DM really wants to they can use these rules" portion. Again, IMHO, allowing for those kinds of options throughout would be the best approach in the tradition of making the game as open as possible to as many preferences as possible.

Quote from: TrevelyanNo, I'm saying that if WotC genuinely believe that A (different monster creation rules) is better than B (monsters using PC creation rules) then there is nothing wrong with saying that A is better than B. If someone who likes B takes that to mean "you suck forever and so do all your friends" then that's a problem with the player, not with WotC.

In case I haven't made myself clear, I've got no problem with them saying they believe that A is better than B - this entire discussion is about how they say that.  IMHO, this way was not a good way to do from a PR persective.

Quote from: TrevelyanBut at the same time, there are some people who will insist that you just insulted their baby, their wife, their honour or any other thing simply because they like a fight. At some point it is no longer effective to pander to their insecurities at the cost of promoting a product to people who are capable of behaving a little less emotionally.

There is little cost in PR making sure it doesn't happen. And it's not pandering, it's simply making the attempt to try not to insult.  If they had made the same point (or, IMHO, left out the "justification" angle in this article and pointed to existing or soon-to-come information about why they think their way is beneficial) without terms such as "bogus" and "trap" I wouldn't have given it a second glance.

From you "For the love of.." post, I got the sense that you were frustrated by the responses - you should behave a bit less emotionally, no?

Quote from: TrevelyanI'm gonna go out on a limb and say that I very much doubt WotC will suffer financially because a few people over react to the PR. In the long run most of the nay-sayers are going to buy this game (que the litany of people swearing that they won't touch it with a 10' pole)

You never know - and that's why, from a PR perspective, it's best not to stir the hornets nest. Now I don't doubt that the number of people who require the monsters are handled the exact same and won't buy a product because of it is small.  But I'd venture a guess that there are quite a few people who are disenchanted with other aspects that have been called out in a similar way. To them this could be just another straw. Again, that's why from a PR perspective, you attempt to minimize these things. While you might be reasonably sure about the direct impact, it's more difficult to be sure of the the collateral effects.

Quote from: TrevelyanIf for "those customers" you mean "those customers who have decided to be predisposed to objecting to anything that WotC say" then I'm inclined to agree with them.

Yeah, because you don't want to court those people and try to get them to buy your game either, right? I mean, fuck them - they're just a bunch of emotionally fragile insecure assholes anyway, right? You should work for WotC PR, you'd fit right in...

Look, if you can't see how it would have been beneficial, from a PR perspective, to find a better way to discuss that piece of information, I can't help you. So I'll leave it to you from here on out. I've taken this too far afield from the OP - which I already covered by saying that IMHO this is one of the better ideas and missives, overall, I've seen about 4e since the whole shebang started...

Quote from: James J SkachThat's a nice try - really.  I mean, I'd be at a loss too if I was quoted as saying the very thing I said I didn't do.  But that quote and the surrounding text from that post make no mention of WotC's mindset. In fact, the point is it raised the bar from your earlier "if WotC believes it's better" point.  go ahead and read your posts, in order.  If you honestly can't see how you inserted "objective better" into the debate, I can't really show you any other way.

For the record, when I read that I took it to be referring to WotC's belief, not Trevalyn's.

Quote from: WarthurDid you not read what you quoted? It says that monsters don't use the bleeding system UNLESS the GM has some special reason to do so. You have a special reason - you like post-fight stabbing and the chances of mooks crawling off to come back another day - so you can use it.

I read exactly what I quoted.   For brevity's sake I snipped the paragraph immediately after they got done talking done my preferred play style ("bogus parallelism that can lead to bad game design").  Unfortunately, I underestimated the literal-mindedness of commenters and left off the sentences describing the "dramatic reasons...  [for] story-based exceptions to the norm" which is what the writers clearly meant by "special reasons."

And yes, I knew when I posted it would be an easy house rule.  Past a certain point, though, I'm better off trying to run another game than brief players on a long list of house rules.  As I said in my last post, maybe they are right, but every release I've seen puts me more in the PHB at most camp.

Quote from: James McMurrayFor the record, when I read that I took it to be referring to WotC's belief, not Trevalyn's.

OK, I must not be expressing myself. I get where the confusion is now.

This isn't about whether it's Trevalyn's or WotC's "belief."  His statement is that A is objectively better than B. Trev or WotC can believe anything they like - and that's kinda the point. They can't prove it's objectively better.  Once that's the case, once they can't say "now with 27% less preparation time (*typical results, actual results may vary) and no impact on play!" or some such, they're dealing in opinion. And if you're a company trying to sell a new product it's best not to state opinions a) as facts, and b) as facts that call the kids people with another opinion ugly.

Perhaps that helps clarify what I'm trying to say.  If that was the problem, my inability to communicate my issue, I apologize.

Quote from: James J SkachThis isn't about whether it's Trevalyn's or WotC's "belief."

Clearly it was a few posts ago.

QuoteHis statement is that A is objectively better than B. Trev or WotC can believe anything they like - and that's kinda the point. They can't prove it's objectively better.  Once that's the case, once they can't say "now with 27% less preparation time (*typical results, actual results may vary) and no impact on play!" or some such, they're dealing in opinion. And if you're a company trying to sell a new product it's best not to state opinions a) as facts, and b) as facts that call the kids people with another opinion ugly.

Maybe I wasn't expressing myself clearly either. It doesn't matter whether you think it's an opinion or not. What matters is that WotC think it's a fact.

They don't endeavour to support this with statistics, instead they have offered an argument, made across several publicity pieces, that mandating a rigid monster creation system based on that used for PCs is both time consuming and restrictive without providing the promised gain in terms of balance. Is that not basis enough for them to make the claims that they do?

QuotePerhaps that helps clarify what I'm trying to say.  If that was the problem, my inability to communicate my issue, I apologize.

Laying aside the "whose belief is it anyway" argument, I think I understand what you're saying, I just don't agree.

For clarity, I do agree that WotC could avoid making comments which have predictably annoyed some poeple. But I think that they have a rationale for making those comments based on what they persieve as the objective superiority of the new design principles.

I also think that any potential customer who declares that he will not buy the new edition on the basis of the PR points we have been discussing is either lying to himself about his likihood of buying the game, or lying to us about his original intentions. A very tiny minority of people might be so emotionally insecure that this one issue is a deciding factor for them, but they have bigger problems.

Personally I don't understand the whole attitude that people have to supporting or "punishing" companies on the absis of PR. If the game is good then why do I care that the PR department are a group of offensive, socially maladjusted, baby sacrificing satanists? Likewise, if the game is a pile of pap then I'm not going to play it simply because PR issued a nicely worded formal apology for all their failings and promised to try harder next time.

Quote from: James J SkachOK, I must not be expressing myself. I get where the confusion is now.

This isn't about whether it's Trevalyn's or WotC's "belief."  His statement is that A is objectively better than B. Trev or WotC can believe anything they like - and that's kinda the point. They can't prove it's objectively better.  Once that's the case, once they can't say "now with 27% less preparation time (*typical results, actual results may vary) and no impact on play!" or some such, they're dealing in opinion. And if you're a company trying to sell a new product it's best not to state opinions a) as facts, and b) as facts that call the kids people with another opinion ugly.

Perhaps that helps clarify what I'm trying to say.  If that was the problem, my inability to communicate my issue, I apologize.

It looks like it was me who was not being clear. I took it to mean "WotC believes it to be objectively better" not a statement of actual objectivity.

Quote from: James McMurrayIt looks like it was me who was not being clear. I took it to mean "WotC believes it to be objectively better" not a statement of actual objectivity.

That was exactly the point I intended to convey

Quote from: StuartThe classic hp system works (you *aren't* shot with the crossbow -- you dive out of the way!) but the following associated systems aren't as smooth:  armour, healing.

Stuart... your avatar is getting more frightenning each time ... thnx... now I must go hide under the covers...  :eek:

As for crossbow dodging... um... I know we're not trying to be realistic... but have you ever seen or heard of anyone dodging a crossbow?   Me neither.

Quote from: VBWyrdeStuart... your avatar is getting more frightenning each time ... thnx... now I must go hide under the covers...  :eek:

As for crossbow dodging... um... I know we're not trying to be realistic... but have you ever seen or heard of anyone dodging a crossbow?   Me neither.

Then again, must we assume that everyone who is ever shot at is entirely at the mercy of their attackers proficency?

In theory I am a paid target, so a great deal of training has been on ways to avoid getting shot. Dodging bullets if you will. No one expects me to actually DODGE the bullet... but its better than trying to say 'moved in an erratic and rapid fashion to a place of cover and/or concealment so that any attempts to shoot him would be potentially thwarted by the difficulty of maintaining aim during his brief periods of vulnerability'.

Or: Dodging.

:D

Quote from: SpikeThen again, must we assume that everyone who is ever shot at is entirely at the mercy of their attackers proficency?

In theory I am a paid target, so a great deal of training has been on ways to avoid getting shot. Dodging bullets if you will. No one expects me to actually DODGE the bullet... but its better than trying to say 'moved in an erratic and rapid fashion to a place of cover and/or concealment so that any attempts to shoot him would be potentially thwarted by the difficulty of maintaining aim during his brief periods of vulnerability'.

Or: Dodging.

:D

Good point.  However, Stuart's avatar is nevertheless frightenning.

Quote from: VBWyrdehave you ever seen or heard of anyone dodging a crossbow?   Me neither.

I bet neither of us has ever seen or heard of anyone actually having a crossbow shot at them at all! :haw:

Feel free to replace "dive out of the way" with "was narrowly missed by..." etc.

If you think about HP not representing physical damage, but instead skill and / or luck, suddenly all sorts of genre things can be represented.

Quote from: Star Wars"Only Imperial stormtroopers are so precise..."

So when Luke or Han stand there and pew pew pew the stormtroopers can't hit them -- to represent that in a game you don't need to make the Imperial elite into terrible shots!  Make them good shots.  They'll wipe out Jawas, and be able to make precise shots against difficult targets.  What keeps the heroes / players alive is their HP.

During combat with Storm Troopers when Han and Luke are standing there and the blaster fire is all over everything but them -- they're burning through HP.  They don't actually get "hit" until they're at 0 HP.  Their Skill, Luck, "The Force" or whatever is what's keeping them alive.  But eventually that'll run out... so if they don't get in their space car, turn on the space 8-track and haul ass, they're toast.

It's only when you add armour and healing that it gets messed up.

Quote from: VBWyrdeGood point.  However, Stuart's avatar is nevertheless frightenning.

Stay Hungry. :haw:

Quote from: StuartI bet neither of us has ever seen or heard of anyone actually having a crossbow shot at them at all! :haw:

Feel free to replace "dive out of the way" with "was narrowly missed by..." etc.

If you think about HP not representing physical damage, but instead skill and / or luck, suddenly all sorts of genre things can be represented.



So when Luke or Han stand there and pew pew pew the stormtroopers can't hit them -- to represent that in a game you don't need to make the Imperial elite into terrible shots!  Make them good shots.  They'll wipe out Jawas, and be able to make precise shots against difficult targets.  What keeps the heroes / players alive is their HP.

During combat with Storm Troopers when Han and Luke are standing there and the blaster fire is all over everything but them -- they're burning through HP.  They don't actually get "hit" until they're at 0 HP.  Their Skill, Luck, "The Force" or whatever is what's keeping them alive.  But eventually that'll run out... so if they don't get in their space car, turn on the space 8-track and haul ass, they're toast.

It's only when you add armour and healing that it gets messed up.

Ok I'm sorry to admit this but I am coming into this conversation towards the tail end.   But that said ... I don't buy this concept of Hit Points being anything other than the physical damage that a body can take.  To me it represents exactly what the name implies (sorry if everyone else has already made this point)... "Hit Points" = "Number of times this Character can be Physically Hit before it goes kaput".   As far as I'm concerned all the dodging stuff you're talking about goes squarely and directly into Armor Class, which includes Dodging.   At least in my system it does (homebrew D&D 1e variant).   So a Thief with great dodging skill due to his high dexterity has a great Armor Class.   He can dodge.  In fact if he puts on heavy armor, he can't dodge as well.  It neutralizes his dexterity because of its bulk.   Therefore his armor class may stay the same because the armor itself adds to his Armor Class.   So what's the advantage of Armor?  It absorbs Hits, reducing damage per blow.   Anyway, that's how I run things in the Elthos System, roughly speaking.  

I am going back under my covers now.   Eeeeeeeek!

Quote from: StuartSo when Luke or Han stand there and pew pew pew the stormtroopers can't hit them -- to represent that in a game you don't need to make the Imperial elite into terrible shots!  Make them good shots.  They'll wipe out Jawas, and be able to make precise shots against difficult targets.  What keeps the heroes / players alive is their HP.

During combat with Storm Troopers when Han and Luke are standing there and the blaster fire is all over everything but them -- they're burning through HP.  They don't actually get "hit" until they're at 0 HP.  Their Skill, Luck, "The Force" or whatever is what's keeping them alive.  But eventually that'll run out... so if they don't get in their space car, turn on the space 8-track and haul ass, they're toast.

It's only when you add armour and healing that it gets messed up.

Actually it breaks down in Return when Leia gets shot at teh START of the big fight...
 
But don't let that stop you....

Hit Points = Hits To Kill.

Anything else is fraud.

I agree the name "Hit Points" is yet another thing working against what I'm suggesting.  Which is why I'd call it something else.  Luck, Fate, Stamina, Spirit, whatever.  Hit points and rolling to see how much damage you do with a weapon when you hit -- that language doesn't lend itself to the idea of hp being anything more than how tough your muscles and bones are. ;)

QuoteActually it breaks down in Return when Leia gets shot at teh START of the big fight...

She must have used them all up fending off Jabba's advances. :haw:

Quote from: StuartTheir Skill, Luck, "The Force" or whatever is what's keeping them alive.

Maybe it's their "Deude Factor" (http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=208849&postcount=12).

Quote from: SpikeActually it breaks down in Return when Leia gets shot at teh START of the big fight...
 
But don't let that stop you....

If we're using Star Wars as an example, we should probably use Star Wars d20. In it hit points are called vitality points, and actual damage is to your wound points. Crits go straight to wounds, so Leia must have been critted by that shot.

Quote from: James McMurrayIf we're using Star Wars as an example, we should probably use Star Wars d20. In it hit points are called vitality points, and actual damage is to your wound points. Crits go straight to wounds, so Leia must have been critted by that shot.

Void as of Star Wars Saga Edition, which uses Hit Points.

Quote from: Bradford C. WalkerVoid as of Star Wars Saga Edition, which uses Hit Points.

that would be why I didn't use SAGA. Did you have anything useful to say?

Quote from: James McMurraythat would be why I didn't use SAGA. Did you have anything useful to say?

Simple clarification of a potentially confusing reference to Star Wars d20, as Saga is not SAGA ("SAGA" refers to the SAGA game engine), and is the most recent revision of WOTC's d20 Star Wars TRPG.

Quote from: Bradford C. WalkerSimple clarification of a potentially confusing reference to Star Wars d20, as Saga is not SAGA ("SAGA" refers to the SAGA game engine), and is the most recent revision of WOTC's d20 Star Wars TRPG.

Oh, ok. Thanks. :)

For the record, I only meant for my statements to apply to the things they apply to, not be taken as some universal indicator of how all Star Wars systems work. :)

Quote from: Bradford C. WalkerHit Points = Hits To Kill.

Anything else is fraud.

I tend to agree.  If hit points were luck or dodgy ability, Thieves/Rogues and Monks would have the most, not Barbarians.