Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6992013" data-attributes="member: 42582">Not in AD&D.And I would say "barely" in 3E - the d20 SRD gives me this for the petrified condition:A petrified character has been turned to stone and is considered unconscious. If a petrified character cracks or breaks, but the broken pieces are joined with the body as he returns to flesh, he is unharmed. If the character’s petrified body is incomplete when it returns to flesh, the body is likewise incomplete and there is some amount of permanent hit point loss and/or debilitation.That is not fully "mechanised", and requires plenty of adjudication of the fiction (eg joining a broken piece to the body; a body being incomplete when it returns to flesh; any resulting debilitation).As I said to [MENTION=6775031]Saelorn[/MENTION] upthread, Vincent Baker doesn't talk about the role of note-taking to keep track of the fiction. The "petrified" condition in 3E is really just a form of note-taking. Whereas in 4e and 5e it is clearly more than just that.Arguably, as more and more conditions get codified and "mechanised", the answer is "yes". This was discussed very often in threads about the prone condition in 4e (eg what does it mean to impose the prone condition on a snake, and why does a snake being prone make it easier to strike with a sword but harder to shoot with an arrow?).I think this is one reason why designers like Baker are attracted to the OSR.Having played and GMed both systems, I can say that I don't agree. In RM, "being injured" means something in the fiction. It directly impacts my PC's ability to do stuff.Whereas in D&D being down hit points doesn't directly impact my ability to do stuff. It's simply a potentiality, a disposition towards being more easily defeated next time I suffer hp loss.In D&D, no. In RM, absolutely. The spells required to heal are different. The recovery times are different.In RM you can't complete the resolution of the hit without applying a left-facing arrow; and you can't resolve the healing of the resulting injury (either by magic or by natural healing) without learning what sort of injury it is.RQ is less intricate than RM in this regard, but likewise requires left-facing arrows in order to resolve combat - because after the successful attack roll (not "hit" roll) the target has to resolve their parry or dodge; and then, if that fails and there is a hit, once the damage dice are rolled the hit location has to be determined so that the armour on that location can be checked. And each body location has its own hp pool, damage to which causes debilitation of that body part.As I said - these systems are quite different from D&D, and deliberately so. They wanted leftward arrows to be an inescapable component of resolving combat; and they wanted so-called "damage spirals" ie the clouds that were generated by those leftward arrows would then generate rightward arrows that affected subsequent combat resolution.My understanding - correct me if I'm wrong - is that you have never played these late-70s/80s-era "sim reaction to D&D" systems. Given your preferences, I think you might find them quite interesting. My own experience is that the combat resolution generates quite a different feel from D&D - more visceral. (With one exception - position tends to be less important in these systems than in 4e, and the latter delivers a sense of being manipulated or knocked about the battlefied that is quite distinctive in my experience, and also in my experience is the sufficient answer to the suggestion that 4e combat is cubes-to-cubes only.)</blockquote>

Verification