Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Rygar" data-source="post: 6457349" data-attributes="member: 6756765">That isn't the purpose of it in 4th edition or the playtest though.&nbsp; If the goal was to empower DM's to narrate combat any way they liked then the &quot;To Hit&quot; role would be renamed to the &quot;Attack&quot; roll,&nbsp; HP's would be remained &quot;Stamina&quot;,&nbsp; and &quot;Damage&quot; would become &quot;Fatigue&quot;.Damage on a Miss has nothing to do with narrative,&nbsp; it retains all of the existing language that forces you to treat terms as undefined in order to justify the events that are transpiring,&nbsp; its purpose is simply to further the &quot;Failing forward&quot; approach.&nbsp; It also exposes all of the weaknesses of &quot;Failing forward&quot; as it introduces contradictions that have to be actively ignored to avoid the game breaking down.&nbsp; Contradictions such as...-An attack could be either a miss or a hit depending on what the DM wants.-Unless the weapon is poisoned,&nbsp; flaming,&nbsp; or any other &quot;On contact&quot; weapon which forces the narration of an event to be a miss regardless of how it was narrated at any previous point.-An attack could be either a miss or a hit depending on what the DM wants.-Unless the results are that the target is placed in the &quot;Dead&quot; state in which case the only possible way to narrate it is as a hit regardless of how it was narrated at any previous point.In 5th edition during the playtest...-If the world's strongest man attacked an opponent with anything but a two handed weapon he could never do damage on a miss.-But the world's weakest man could so long as his weapon required two hands.-Worse,&nbsp; the world's strongest man could never do damage on a miss unless his chosen profession was &quot;Fighter&quot;,&nbsp; any other choice and he couldn't do damage on a miss under any circumstances.Which causes endless problems with any narrative since you basically have to ignore all of the issues that basically cause the narrative to be meaningless.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Rygar, post: 6457349, member: 6756765"] That isn't the purpose of it in 4th edition or the playtest though. If the goal was to empower DM's to narrate combat any way they liked then the "To Hit" role would be renamed to the "Attack" roll, HP's would be remained "Stamina", and "Damage" would become "Fatigue". Damage on a Miss has nothing to do with narrative, it retains all of the existing language that forces you to treat terms as undefined in order to justify the events that are transpiring, its purpose is simply to further the "Failing forward" approach. It also exposes all of the weaknesses of "Failing forward" as it introduces contradictions that have to be actively ignored to avoid the game breaking down. Contradictions such as... -An attack could be either a miss or a hit depending on what the DM wants. -Unless the weapon is poisoned, flaming, or any other "On contact" weapon which forces the narration of an event to be a miss regardless of how it was narrated at any previous point. -An attack could be either a miss or a hit depending on what the DM wants. -Unless the results are that the target is placed in the "Dead" state in which case the only possible way to narrate it is as a hit regardless of how it was narrated at any previous point. In 5th edition during the playtest... -If the world's strongest man attacked an opponent with anything but a two handed weapon he could never do damage on a miss. -But the world's weakest man could so long as his weapon required two hands. -Worse, the world's strongest man could never do damage on a miss unless his chosen profession was "Fighter", any other choice and he couldn't do damage on a miss under any circumstances. Which causes endless problems with any narrative since you basically have to ignore all of the issues that basically cause the narrative to be meaningless. [/QUOTE]

Verification