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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Alzrius" data-source="post: 9217437" data-attributes="member: 8461">That's not a claim, it's an observation. Literally, if the game attaches two different representations to a single operation, then that's going to require an adjudication of which representation is active at a given time, whereas if there was only a single operation attached to an observation then no such adjudication is needed because that's the default. Quod erat demonstrandum.I agree that 4E is making a problem out of nothing, in that it didn't have to go that route.And I disagree, and note that you haven't actually demonstrated that the quotes are wrong, or that the larger context changes what's being observed. Quite the contrary, the context seems to go out of its way to sustain what I'm saying. The due diligence has already been put forward, and if you don't take it seriously, that's on you.In which case you'd need to actually go back and read where it was addressed and respond to the substance of the argument, rather than the person making it."May" notes a possibility, and since the sight we're talking about is my own, I can therefore authoritatively state that possibility to not be the case; quite the contrary really.The mechanics of 4E tells you that hit point loss/restoration is coming from at least two different things, which address completely different aspects of the fiction (e.g. injury and resilience), but having all of those be represented at the mechanical level by a single mechanic means that mechanic is doing double-duty in order to present them. That's not a requirement, just a simple observation of facts.Leaving aside the "outside of D&D family" bit, no such citations or corroboration were made; all that people seem to be able to do is point to Gygax's old essay in the AD&D 1E DMG, or insist that the game must never have had hit point loss/restoration be injury because otherwise it would be unrealistic (even though D&D was never realistic).Vacillating between different things depending on the circumstance, while tying them all to a single mechanic, is not "making up its mind." It resolved itself to do multiple things at once, and then passed on the burden that created to the players, in a clear break from earlier versions of the game. Some people don't mind the extra work that creates, but it's undeniable that it does create extra work.See above, and on the previous page, and on the page before that, etc.Funny, this sounds like when you didn't know what a special pleading was. <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/laugh.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing    :lol:" data-shortname=":lol:" />Which then begs the question as to why Gygax didn't write a restore luck spell to bring back hit points, even after saying they could be luck, etc. It's almost as though the rest of what he wrote ignores that essay.Which I've already done, multiple times over, even if you deny it. It's very hard to convince someone of something when they have a vested interest in not being convinced.Literally, if the game attaches two things to a single mechanic, and doesn't differentiate between them, then it's moving that to the player. Remember your comment about "the same" hit points? That's the crux of the issue, right there.On the contrary, you're simply denying what's already been established by saying "no, it's not established/real/convincing," which is ironically unconvincing itself.Saying "I think you liked" something when the other person denies it is indeed putting forth to their state of mind, and accusing them of disingenuousness, even when you phrase it as "I just think that's the real reason you keep saying this." Own it.</blockquote>

Verification