Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6989559" data-attributes="member: 42582">[MENTION=6857506]Harzel[/MENTION] - yep, that's the exchange I was referencing.Consider case A (where its boxes-to-boxes with an incidental leftward arrow to clouds).If the oppressive heat that is narrated as a byproduct of the &quot;give your opponent a penalty&quot; roll then matters to something else down the track (eg the PCs food spoils) then it is meaningful in the sense I used in my post to which you replied.If it never comes into play again, then it's not.My reason for doubting that there are meaningful leftward arrows in the Gygaxian paradigm of hitting (as I presented it in the OP - I'm bracketing&nbsp; [MENTION=6775031]Saelorn[/MENTION]'s thought that a hit is always in some sense a hit) is that nothing downstream follows from what is imagined (about luck, endurance etc being depleted). For instance, there is no penalty to future saves; no penalty to run or jump; etc.Someone playing a board game could imagine stuff in the fiction as they make moves from boxes to boxes, but that wouldn't matter to resolution either.It's only what I've labelled a meaningful leftward arrow if, downstream, some rightward arrow will follow from it. (I think this is one part of the debate over 4e and &quot;dissociated&quot; mechanics. I think 4e does have leftward-followed-by-rightward arrows, but - as I said in the OP - these are carried by conditions (and also keywords), not by the &quot;to hit&quot; mechanic per se.)EDIT: Something quite banal that would make the leftward arrow &quot;meaningful&quot; in my sense would be if, after a fight in which &quot;hits&quot; occurred, it was accepted that the player had to knock of gold pieces so their PC can repair their torn doublets etc. This isn't part of the rules, but it could easily be a table convention that was adopted. You could also imagine other stuff, like a -5% to reactions with middle/upper class people while wearing torn cloths.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 6989559, member: 42582"] [MENTION=6857506]Harzel[/MENTION] - yep, that's the exchange I was referencing. Consider case A (where its boxes-to-boxes with an incidental leftward arrow to clouds). If the oppressive heat that is narrated as a byproduct of the "give your opponent a penalty" roll then matters to something else down the track (eg the PCs food spoils) then it is [I]meaningful[/I] in the sense I used in my post to which you replied. If it never comes into play again, then it's not. My reason for doubting that there are meaningful leftward arrows in the Gygaxian paradigm of hitting (as I presented it in the OP - I'm bracketing [MENTION=6775031]Saelorn[/MENTION]'s thought that a hit is always in some sense a hit) is that nothing downstream follows from what is imagined (about luck, endurance etc being depleted). For instance, there is no penalty to future saves; no penalty to run or jump; etc. Someone playing a board game could imagine stuff in the fiction as they make moves from boxes to boxes, but that wouldn't matter to resolution either. It's only what I've labelled a [I]meaningful[/I] leftward arrow if, downstream, some rightward arrow will follow from it. (I think this is one part of the debate over 4e and "dissociated" mechanics. I think 4e does have leftward-followed-by-rightward arrows, but - as I said in the OP - these are carried by conditions (and also keywords), not by the "to hit" mechanic per se.) EDIT: Something quite banal that would make the leftward arrow "meaningful" in my sense would be if, after a fight in which "hits" occurred, it was accepted that the player had to knock of gold pieces so their PC can repair their torn doublets etc. This isn't part of the rules, but it could easily be a table convention that was adopted. You could also imagine other stuff, like a -5% to reactions with middle/upper class people while wearing torn cloths. [/QUOTE]

Verification