Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="JohnSnow" data-source="post: 4290373" data-attributes="member: 32164">While there are some upsides to the Wound/Vitality system, I don't think you can fairly say it's strictly &quot;better&quot; than the hit point system. Yes, it's &quot;better&quot; for certain styles of play, but not for others.For example, how much do you like &quot;swinginess&quot; in your combat system? For some people, the answer is &quot;a lot.&quot; For many (most?), the answer is &quot;not much.&quot;Because the wound/vitality system has critical hits bypass vitality points, there is always the chance of a &quot;luck shot&quot; that takes someone out of the fight - or possibly even kills them. Whether you think that's good, bad or neutral is mostly a matter of taste. However, it's not particularly &quot;Star Wars-y&quot;, which is why they ditched WP/VP in favor of hit points for Star Wars Saga Edition.Personally, I think the &quot;confusion&quot; related to hit points is caused by three factors:&nbsp;<img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/1.gif"&nbsp; class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":1:" title="One&nbsp; &nbsp; :1:" data-shortname=":1:" /> The name - to some people, &quot;hit points&quot; has to do with &quot;number of hits you can survive&quot; or is synonymous with &quot;health points.&quot;&nbsp;<img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/2.gif"&nbsp; class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":2:" title="Two&nbsp; &nbsp; :2:" data-shortname=":2:" /> &quot;Cure X wounds&quot; spells. To the average modern person who's never been &quot;wounded,&quot; the minute you say &quot;wound,&quot; they think &quot;gaping bleeding injury,&quot; rather than &quot;battered, bruised, scraped and tired.&quot;&nbsp;<img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/3.gif"&nbsp; class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":3:" title="Three&nbsp; &nbsp; :3:" data-shortname=":3:" /> Falling damage and other corner case things (lava and so forth). Too many people think that those things have to be &quot;raw, physical injury.&quot; Therefore, the reasoning goes, since hit points can save you from a fall, they must be that as well. The last is largely the fault of Gary (and other designers) not really emphasizing that hit points are a way of modelling all the factors that prevent heroic characters from dying. The 20th-level fighter who falls over a cliff and survives a titanic fall, is battered and bruised, but somehow survived. How? Partially, this is one of those times where hit points start to reflect nothing but pure luck - there was soft earth at the bottom, a tree broke his fall, he managed to grab the cliff and slow his fall somehow on the way down, or whatever.You ever watch Mythbusters? They've shown repeatedly that many of the falls that, for example, Indiana Jones takes should kill a normal person. But Indy lives through them, and we buy it. Why?This isn't &quot;D&amp;D embracing the paradigm of Dragonball Z,&quot; rather, it's D&amp;D embracing the paradigm of every piece of heroic (not superheroic, just heroic) fiction that's been written for the last 4000 years.This is the source material on which our game is based. I fail to see the problem people have with the game playing like its source material?Oh, wait, I know. &quot;D&amp;D isn't a novel, blah, blah, blah...&quot;For the most part, &quot;realism&quot; won't make the game more fun. And frankly, if the physics of &quot;adventure fiction&quot; make the game more &quot;fun,&quot; those should be the default.And, as with all heroic tales, some level of &quot;suspension of disbelief&quot; is going to be involved on the part of the audience (or, in this case, those playing the game).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="JohnSnow, post: 4290373, member: 32164"] While there are some upsides to the Wound/Vitality system, I don't think you can fairly say it's strictly "better" than the hit point system. Yes, it's "better" for certain styles of play, but not for others. For example, how much do you like "swinginess" in your combat system? For some people, the answer is "a lot." For many (most?), the answer is "not much." Because the wound/vitality system has critical hits bypass vitality points, there is always the chance of a "luck shot" that takes someone out of the fight - or possibly even kills them. Whether you think that's good, bad or neutral is mostly a matter of taste. However, it's not particularly "[i]Star Wars[/i]-y", which is why they ditched WP/VP in favor of hit points for [i]Star Wars Saga Edition[/i]. Personally, I think the "confusion" related to hit points is caused by three factors: :1: The name - to some people, "hit points" has to do with "number of hits you can survive" or is synonymous with "health points." :2: "Cure X wounds" spells. To the average modern person who's never been "wounded," the minute you say "wound," they think "gaping bleeding injury," rather than "battered, bruised, scraped and tired." :3: Falling damage and other corner case things (lava and so forth). Too many people think that those things have to be "raw, physical injury." Therefore, the reasoning goes, since hit points can save you from a fall, they must be that as well. The last is largely the fault of Gary (and other designers) not really emphasizing that hit points are a way of modelling [i]all the factors[/i] that prevent heroic characters from dying. The 20th-level fighter who falls over a cliff and survives a titanic fall, is battered and bruised, but somehow survived. How? Partially, this is one of those times where hit points start to reflect nothing but pure luck - there was soft earth at the bottom, a tree broke his fall, he managed to grab the cliff and slow his fall somehow on the way down, or whatever. You ever watch [i]Mythbusters?[/i] They've shown repeatedly that many of the falls that, for example, Indiana Jones takes should kill a normal person. But Indy lives through them, and we buy it. Why? This isn't "D&D embracing the paradigm of [i]Dragonball Z[/i]," rather, it's D&D embracing the paradigm of every piece of [i]heroic[/i] (not [i]superheroic,[/i] just [i]heroic[/i]) fiction that's been written for the last 4000 years. This is the source material on which our game is based. I fail to see the problem people have with the game playing like its source material? Oh, wait, I know. "D&D isn't a novel, blah, blah, blah..." For the most part, "realism" won't make the game more fun. And frankly, if the physics of "adventure fiction" make the game more "fun," those should be the default. And, as with all heroic tales, some level of "suspension of disbelief" is going to be involved on the part of the audience (or, in this case, those playing the game). [/QUOTE]

Verification