Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 8612738" data-attributes="member: 71699">In 5e and RQ, there is no consequence for losing hit points until a specific threshold is reached - the last point, either in sum (both), or in a location (RQ) - until then hit points are only numbers. They're just a track on the sheet that tells us when we'll apply some level of constraint over further action declarations for a creature.In 5e at tier 4, where characters are far beyond mortal metabolisms, hit points are still doing their job: informing players at what threshold to constrain further action declarations. RQ isn't designed to present that kind of play. In fact, I think 5e succeeds most in that it encourages an imaginative playstyle, with an abundance of miraculous things PCs can do. RQ is more muted.But here we come back to saying only that to be simulationist, our real world must be the reference. And we lack explanation for what allows us to make exceptions here and there, without being accused of picking-and-choosing.I think you are saying that it matters to you that the game designers instruct you in writing that hit points are always physical injury. I dislike the idea that where the game designers do not do so, you are at a loss and may refuse to say what follows or play sincerely. So I'll leave it to you to advise on that. For whatever reason, you feel bound by what the designers say, and don't feel you must follow what your group at your table says.So you might say, a simulationist game is one in which descriptions are narrowly defined: so in our example, hit points can't be luck, fatigue and ultimately flesh, but must be defined narrowly as flesh? Even though as [USER=6801845]@Oofta[/USER] points out, they do a very bad job of modelling real trauma.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="clearstream, post: 8612738, member: 71699"] In 5e and RQ, there is no consequence for losing hit points until a specific threshold is reached - the last point, either in sum (both), or in a location (RQ) - until then hit points are only numbers. They're just a track on the sheet that tells us when we'll apply some level of constraint over further action declarations for a creature. In 5e at tier 4, where characters are far beyond mortal metabolisms, hit points are still doing their job: informing players at what threshold to constrain further action declarations. RQ isn't designed to present that kind of play. In fact, I think 5e succeeds most in that it encourages an imaginative playstyle, with an abundance of miraculous things PCs can do. RQ is more muted. But here we come back to saying only that to be simulationist, our real world must be the reference. And we lack explanation for what allows us to make exceptions here and there, without being accused of picking-and-choosing. I think you are saying that it matters to you that the game designers instruct you in writing that hit points are always physical injury. I dislike the idea that where the game designers do not do so, you are at a loss and may refuse to say what follows or play sincerely. So I'll leave it to you to advise on that. For whatever reason, you feel bound by what the designers say, and don't feel you must follow what your group at your table says. So you might say, a simulationist game is one in which descriptions are narrowly defined: so in our example, hit points can't be luck, fatigue and ultimately flesh, but must be defined narrowly as flesh? Even though as [USER=6801845]@Oofta[/USER] points out, they do a very bad job of modelling real trauma. [/QUOTE]

Verification