Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Andor" data-source="post: 4010358" data-attributes="member: 1879">Chris Sims's article makes it clear that the Official position on HP is that they are abstract and represent luck or skill at dodging or somesuch. In all the history of gaming this has never made one damm bit of sense in systems like D&D where the PCs gain HP by the bucketload as they level. Why? Because all the luck in the world will not explain why my dwarven fighter can survive orbital re-entry. I, as a player, can always back the GM into a corner where he has to either admit the system does not portray abstract HP, or he has to break the rules in order to kill my character to preserve the illusion of squishyness on the part of high level characters. So why is everyone so married to a concept which requires so much active collusion, winking, and handwaving between GMs and Players to preserve an illusion that few people pay much attention to anyway? I can come up with viable in game explanations for HP all day long, and I doubt that the design team at WotC has less imagination than I do, so why is this idea so pervasive?Let's be honest here. If we wanted to play a game where a few guards with crossbows actually worried our PCs we would be playing WHFRP or GURPs or Fantasy Hero or freaking Amber. Obviously we dig the concept of PCs who rapidly pass out of the realm of mere mortal toughness and into the realm of the action movie badass or superhero. Why won't we admit this to ourselves? :\</blockquote>

Verification