Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 4466000" data-attributes="member: 18280">Not quite.&nbsp; In order to understand what I am saying, you have to disentangle the game from the game world for a moment.&nbsp; &quot;Hit points&quot; have no objective meanining in the game world (they do in the game).&nbsp; Hit points, in previous editions of D&amp;D, represent something that has objective meaning in the game world in real time.&nbsp; This means, when I take a hit, I can compare it against my remaining hit points, and I can determine what it represents.&nbsp; Despite the apparent controversy over the naming conventions of cure spells, no future events within the game force me to decide between altering my description of the wound I took (on one hand) or claiming to still have a wound that has no game meaning (on the other).Conversely, in 4e, when I take hit point damage, I don't know what it represents at the time I take it.&nbsp; If I declare it is an actual wound, and I use a healing surge later, I am potentially stuck with either (a) my wound having disappeared without having actually been healed, or (b) claiming to still have a wound that has no game meaning.&nbsp; If, on the other hand, I declare that it represents no wound, and I have magical healing later, I am potentially stuck with the healing of a wound that doesn't exist.Compound this with the sheer absurdity of Inigo being able to put his hand over his wound and soldier on, not once, but repeatedly, day in and day out.&nbsp; And, unlike in The Princess Bride, there is never a cost for that wound.&nbsp; Unlike in Die Hard, he never is taken to the hospital at the end of the movie.&nbsp; He just goes to the next dungeon, fresh as a daisy, ready to do it all over again.That just doesn't work for me.I'm not saying that, if it does work for you, you should stop playing the game.&nbsp; Obviously not.&nbsp; If it works for you, it does work for you.&nbsp; But I am saying that, when one claims that it doesn't work for him, and gives you the above reasons, that they are valid reasons.&nbsp; It is one thing to say, &quot;Yes, this happens, but it works for me&quot; and another to say &quot;No, that doesn't happen&quot;.&nbsp; When people pointed out problems with 3e, other people said &quot;No, that doesn't happen&quot;....until WotC pointed out the same problems.&nbsp; Then, many of those folks agreed that it was obvious that it happened, and were happy that 4e was going to &quot;fix&quot; those problems.I didn't say that the game was wrongbadfun and that you shouldn't play it.&nbsp; I said that these elements cause this problem, and that this problem makes the game unsatisfying for me.&nbsp; It is a real problem.&nbsp; All game systems have real problems.&nbsp; Those who enjoy a game system usually do so because the problems the system has are easy for them to ignore.&nbsp; And that's a good thing, btw, when playing at the table.&nbsp; Pretending that the problems don't exist when they are being discussed in an open forum, OTOH, is not.&nbsp; IMHO at least.RC</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Raven Crowking, post: 4466000, member: 18280"] Not quite. In order to understand what I am saying, you have to disentangle the game from the game world for a moment. "Hit points" have no objective meanining in the game world (they do in the game). Hit points, in previous editions of D&D, [i]represent[/i] something that has objective meaning in the game world in real time. This means, when I take a hit, I can compare it against my remaining hit points, and I can determine what it represents. Despite the apparent controversy over the naming conventions of cure spells, no future events within the game force me to decide between altering my description of the wound I took (on one hand) or claiming to still have a wound that has no game meaning (on the other). Conversely, in 4e, when I take hit point damage, I don't know what it represents at the time I take it. If I declare it is an actual wound, and I use a healing surge later, I am potentially stuck with either (a) my wound having disappeared without having actually been healed, or (b) claiming to still have a wound that has no game meaning. If, on the other hand, I declare that it represents no wound, and I have magical healing later, I am potentially stuck with the healing of a wound that doesn't exist. Compound this with the sheer absurdity of Inigo being able to put his hand over his wound and soldier on, not once, but repeatedly, day in and day out. And, unlike in The Princess Bride, there is never a cost for that wound. Unlike in Die Hard, he never is taken to the hospital at the end of the movie. He just goes to the next dungeon, fresh as a daisy, ready to do it all over again. That just doesn't work for me. I'm not saying that, if it does work for you, you should stop playing the game. Obviously not. If it works for you, it does work for you. But I am saying that, when one claims that it doesn't work for him, and gives you the above reasons, that they are valid reasons. It is one thing to say, "Yes, this happens, but it works for me" and another to say "No, that doesn't happen". When people pointed out problems with 3e, other people said "No, that doesn't happen"....until WotC pointed out the same problems. Then, many of those folks agreed that it was obvious that it happened, and were happy that 4e was going to "fix" those problems. I didn't say that the game was wrongbadfun and that you shouldn't play it. I said that these elements cause this problem, and that this problem makes the game unsatisfying for me. It is a real problem. All game systems have real problems. Those who enjoy a game system usually do so because the problems the system has are easy for them to ignore. And that's a good thing, btw, when playing at the table. Pretending that the problems don't exist when they are being discussed in an open forum, OTOH, is not. IMHO at least. RC [/QUOTE]

Verification