Search results

That's a different issue IMO. It's a disagreement about granularity of resolution and what the results of a die roll should actually determine more than anything else. From there, the question expands to whether or not the roll should determine anything more than the specific task is a preferred...

You avoid abstractions when it can be practically done. My goodness, this is just the 100% realism straw man all over again. No simulation is perfect, and people make compromises for play all the time. Doesn't mean sim doesn't matter to them.

It's called, "GM interprets and describes the results". A big part of their job, actually. Right there in the book.

My opinion was about what I see as wrong with the runes example, from the perspective of games I play. You obviously know your games better than I do, so I would assume that for you and your table, how the runes were handled was perfectly fine. I was explaining why it wouldn't work for me...

Did they say anything about how the game differs from the current version?

Please use a more reasonable example. I can't tell you what I would do to address a situation that ridiculous.

Do you think that situation is likely to occur in an actual game run by a GM?

I really, really hope they don't. Plenty of supers games do the rules light thing already. That's not M&M, and is in fact what I was thinking of when I said "7th Dea 2e situation". I suspect if they tried they would lose a good chunk of their existing base.

I never played M&M with minis anyway.

I would need to see what sort of changes they're making. I don't want another 7th Sea second edition situation.

I actually liked all that random disease stuff, but then realism in principle and in practice is very important to me. My favorite OSR allows for the sort of thing you're talking about in 1e, and I'm happy it does. And the thing I best remember from my brief contact with Rolemaster is it's...

The DR would need to be high enough to completely negate the rapier's damage, either in general or to piercing. Alternatively, the damage represents striking a joint or other weak spot.

A thought always worth keeping in mind, but not enough to cover all such situations IMO.

I believe it was toughness in the case of the dwarf. If no such reason is apparent, then IMO we go to better rules for such situations.

I'm saying your posting style is hard for me to follow and respond to. Consider it my issue.

I would never stat Superman's invulnerability as hit points. Damage reduction (and a lot of it) all the way.

Those aren't games I play (or care to), so it's not really relevant to my interests. I'll stipulate to your point being accurate though. What do I know?

This where hit points obviously can't just be meat. It's all scratches and grazes until you hit zero. That's how I do it.

Proportionally that can definitely do some damage if hitting in the right place. Also: magic.

It all comes back to hit points, huh? We can't stay away from it for long.