Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 6326441" data-attributes="member: 177">I am raising a point for consideration.&nbsp; With the long thread, and multiple posters, it can be difficult to keep the positions of individual straight.&nbsp; I have read about many different desires, and I'm not sure they've all been entirely consistent, and I get the impression that the statements of desires is often incomplete.&nbsp; Sometimes there is talk about &quot;playstyle&quot;.&nbsp; Sometimes, there's talk about specific mechanics.&nbsp; Sometimes there's talk about specific fluff.&nbsp; None of these are equivalent.&nbsp; If you work in software, you'd see this as a customer who seems to ramble a bit about what they want - their thoughts aren't as focused as the designer needs them to be, and often times, that lack of focus is indicative of a lack of understanding of what, ultimately is *needed*, and what is only nice-to-have.&nbsp; Of course, it doesnt' help that we have multiple customers....&quot;No non-magical healing&quot;, by itself, is *trivial* to produce.&nbsp; Overall, &quot;magic&quot; is merely an in-game description of the results of mechanics.&nbsp; Take whatever mechanic you've got, fluff it with some supernatural explanation, and you are done.&nbsp; Is that really *all* you want?&nbsp; Or, do you want a weapon and armor combat specialist who does not regain hit points on his own at any appreciable rate (magical or otherwise)?&nbsp; Or, do you want a specific overall general economy of hit points?&nbsp; BryonD seems more concerned with the general economy of hit points.&nbsp; You say you're interested in the in-game explanation for the hit point gain.So, again, I have to ask - they have said the system will be flexible, modifiable.&nbsp; How many of the desired modifications does WotC itself need to produce before it is seen to be satisfactory?Yes, well, I think that's putting the cart before the horse.&nbsp; How do you have a view of hit points outside the context of a specific rule set?&nbsp; Hit points do not exist except as defined by game rules.&nbsp; They are not a real-world thing, nor are they an element of the fiction that inspires the game.&nbsp; Characters do not know about hit points.&nbsp; In-game explanations of hit points are only necessary insofar as they help one make rulings when characters do things that aren't covered by the standard hit point rules.&nbsp; Then, it seems to me that &quot;hit points as 100% meat&quot; makes little sense without an accompanying fatigue mechanic to dump things that aren't really meat-damage onto.But that's just me.&nbsp; I don't feel so strongly about this that I'll fail to buy/play a game over it.&nbsp; Yeah, and that, to me, is where you go off into the hinterlands.There are *tens of thousands*&nbsp; of potential customers.&nbsp; As a practical matter, it is not realistic to think they'll actively support all their desires right out of the gate.&nbsp; There are just too many things that too many people want - and they *all* claim thier segment is large enough to justify it!&nbsp; Failure to support your baby, no matter how big you think it is, does not alone equate to an exclusionary attitude.&nbsp; Do not ascribe to malice what can adequately explained by other limitations.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 6326441, member: 177"] I am raising a point for consideration. With the long thread, and multiple posters, it can be difficult to keep the positions of individual straight. I have read about many different desires, and I'm not sure they've all been entirely consistent, and I get the impression that the statements of desires is often incomplete. Sometimes there is talk about "playstyle". Sometimes, there's talk about specific mechanics. Sometimes there's talk about specific fluff. None of these are equivalent. If you work in software, you'd see this as a customer who seems to ramble a bit about what they want - their thoughts aren't as focused as the designer needs them to be, and often times, that lack of focus is indicative of a lack of understanding of what, ultimately is *needed*, and what is only nice-to-have. Of course, it doesnt' help that we have multiple customers.... "No non-magical healing", by itself, is *trivial* to produce. Overall, "magic" is merely an in-game description of the results of mechanics. Take whatever mechanic you've got, fluff it with some supernatural explanation, and you are done. Is that really *all* you want? Or, do you want a weapon and armor combat specialist who does not regain hit points on his own at any appreciable rate (magical or otherwise)? Or, do you want a specific overall general economy of hit points? BryonD seems more concerned with the general economy of hit points. You say you're interested in the in-game explanation for the hit point gain. So, again, I have to ask - they have said the system will be flexible, modifiable. How many of the desired modifications does WotC itself need to produce before it is seen to be satisfactory? Yes, well, I think that's putting the cart before the horse. How do you have a view of hit points outside the context of a specific rule set? Hit points do not exist except as defined by game rules. They are not a real-world thing, nor are they an element of the fiction that inspires the game. Characters do not know about hit points. In-game explanations of hit points are only necessary insofar as they help one make rulings when characters do things that aren't covered by the standard hit point rules. Then, it seems to me that "hit points as 100% meat" makes little sense without an accompanying fatigue mechanic to dump things that aren't really meat-damage onto. But that's just me. I don't feel so strongly about this that I'll fail to buy/play a game over it. Yeah, and that, to me, is where you go off into the hinterlands. There are *tens of thousands* of potential customers. As a practical matter, it is not realistic to think they'll actively support all their desires right out of the gate. There are just too many things that too many people want - and they *all* claim thier segment is large enough to justify it! Failure to support your baby, no matter how big you think it is, does not alone equate to an exclusionary attitude. Do not ascribe to malice what can adequately explained by other limitations. [/QUOTE]

Verification