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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5874806" data-attributes="member: 42582">Neither stating it nor implying it. As I said, "the PCs are thrust into situations where they must make dramatic choices of one sort or another, and the players, in making those choices, take account of the metagame resources (such as hp) to which they have access."The players know they have the relevant resources (at least in standard D&D, in which players track their own hit points, roll their own saving throws knowing their bonuses, etc; and the approach that seems to have had some sway in the early 80s, of GMs tracking hp and telling players "You feel strong", "You feel pretty beaten up", etc, seems to rely heavily on hp-as-meat - of which I'm not a big fan).Well, in most games with an action point or fate point mechanic it would be expected that players would plan around their possession of such resources. I don't think hit points are very different. And, indeed, Raven Crowking used to argue that it was via this process that hit points achieve a type of "impairment effect": players whose PCs have fewer of them will play more cautiously and less recklessly.My own view is that if you don't want players to play their PCs keeping in mind their access to metagame resources, don't give them the resources. If I want to play a game without metagame, I will play a system whose mechanics support that. There are many such good systems available - Runquest is in my view just about the best on any objective measure, but for reasons of nostalgia and quirkiness I have a very soft spot for Rolemaster. I've never played GURPS, HERO or C&S but I'm sure any of them does a reasonable job also.TL;DR: What's the point of giving PCs hit points if players are not expected to use them?</blockquote>

Verification