Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mustrum_Ridcully" data-source="post: 4232684" data-attributes="member: 710">One thing I am constantly pondering with is the idea of just trying to implement hit points differently.Torg didn't have hit points. You took shock damage or wound damage, and it was pretty &quot;static&quot; - theoretically, you could die in one hit. But whenever you take damage, you spend a possiblity point to reduce the damage.Is this approach more satisfying from a &quot;simulationist&quot; perspective? The rules without possibilities emulate the real world - you get 4 wounds and 8 shockpoints if you're hit hard by a .45 Magnum. But the possibilities add the... &quot;cinematic&quot; element - because you're important, you undo the hit - you basically enter a reality where the hit wasn't that bad at all...In Torg, possibilities where not just a game construct-&nbsp; they were also part of the setting. Storm Knights most distinctive feature were their status as &quot;possibility-rated&quot; being, so they where also simulationist, I guess.But you don't have to make them part of the real game world, since it might feel like an intrusion to your worlds setting.The question, again, is: Would such a mechanic be actually more satisfying? Or is it just a way to complicated method to achieve the same effects of hit points? I mean, first you go through all the pain of &quot;simulating&quot; the real world, and then you add rules to allow you to ignore the rules for the real world? It is just a gamist or narrativist (Torg had both elements, also allowing you to tap into character traits or world axioms to gain such benefits) added to a simulationist way, and the game woud be just as good with just the gamist and narrative elements?Will 5E maybe try to reconcile all types of games - simulationist, narrative and gamist - by removing level based / ablative hit points, and expand the action point system to handle also the ablative nature of hitpoints stuff, and possibly also add dramatic/narrative uses for action points?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mustrum_Ridcully, post: 4232684, member: 710"] One thing I am constantly pondering with is the idea of just trying to implement hit points differently. Torg didn't have hit points. You took shock damage or wound damage, and it was pretty "static" - theoretically, you could die in one hit. But whenever you take damage, you spend a possiblity point to reduce the damage. Is this approach more satisfying from a "simulationist" perspective? The rules without possibilities emulate the real world - you get 4 wounds and 8 shockpoints if you're hit hard by a .45 Magnum. But the possibilities add the... "cinematic" element - because you're important, you undo the hit - you basically enter a reality where the hit wasn't that bad at all... In Torg, possibilities where not just a game construct- they were also part of the setting. Storm Knights most distinctive feature were their status as "possibility-rated" being, so they where also simulationist, I guess. But you don't have to make them part of the real game world, since it might feel like an intrusion to your worlds setting. The question, again, is: Would such a mechanic be actually more satisfying? Or is it just a way to complicated method to achieve the same effects of hit points? I mean, first you go through all the pain of "simulating" the real world, and then you add rules to allow you to ignore the rules for the real world? It is just a gamist or narrativist (Torg had both elements, also allowing you to tap into character traits or world axioms to gain such benefits) added to a simulationist way, and the game woud be just as good with just the gamist and narrative elements? Will 5E maybe try to reconcile all types of games - simulationist, narrative and gamist - by removing level based / ablative hit points, and expand the action point system to handle also the ablative nature of hitpoints stuff, and possibly also add dramatic/narrative uses for action points? [/QUOTE]

Verification