Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 4466370" data-attributes="member: 18280">If you don't understand what I am getting at, I can think of no further way to describe it.&nbsp; Possibly.&nbsp; I'm fine with descriptive elements, such as scarring (for example) not having a mechanical effect.&nbsp; I'm fine with broken bones occurring in-world, even if there are no mechanical means to break them.&nbsp; I am fine with a player claiming his character is bothered by an old wound, and role-playing it rather than having a mechanical equivilence.What I am not okay with is Lance taking a hit, declaring it a major wound, then getting a second wind and the wound goes away.&nbsp; I prefer a game in which action has consequences.&nbsp; It is the way in which we deal with those consequences, to me, which is the most interesting aspect of play.Again, 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.However, I'll grant that Schrödinger's Wounding is certainly consistent with mechanics that allow you to kill your foes when you miss.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Trust me.&nbsp; This sort of thing bothers me quite a bit at the table.RC</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Raven Crowking, post: 4466370, member: 18280"] If you don't understand what I am getting at, I can think of no further way to describe it. Possibly. I'm fine with descriptive elements, such as scarring (for example) not having a mechanical effect. I'm fine with broken bones occurring in-world, even if there are no mechanical means to break them. I am fine with a player claiming his character is bothered by an old wound, and role-playing it rather than having a mechanical equivilence. What I am not okay with is Lance taking a hit, declaring it a major wound, then getting a second wind and the wound goes away. I prefer a game in which action has consequences. It is the way in which we deal with those consequences, to me, which is the most interesting aspect of play. Again, 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. However, I'll grant that Schrödinger's Wounding is certainly consistent with mechanics that allow you to kill your foes when you miss. ;) :) Trust me. This sort of thing bothers me quite a bit at the table. RC [/QUOTE]

Verification