Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 4468090" data-attributes="member: 18280">Perhaps.&nbsp; But I find it far less absurd than 4e.&nbsp; As I have pointed out now, several times, the mechanics inform play, so that an injured PC is almost never played as an uninjured PC.&nbsp; At least IME.&nbsp; Certainly anyone who understands the win conditions of the game will not wander around nearly dead as blithely as if he were at full hit points.Earlier, it was said that a wounded PC is not dazed.&nbsp; Certainly, he doesn't have the 3e &quot;dazed&quot; condition.&nbsp; OTOH, he is not able to evade the killing stroke as he would be able to do were he fully alert and able.&nbsp; That is what hit points represent.Finally, at the very least, hit points don't violate the arrow of time.RCEDIT:&nbsp; Here's anther way to look at it:My nine-year-old daughter has no problem understanding hit points, and has no problem understanding how hit points work in terms of both game mechanics and the win conditions of the game.&nbsp; Yes, the hit point mechanic is not as detailed as some, and some claim that it is unrealistic because of that lack of detail.&nbsp; Yes, it is important to consider before adding subsystems (which, unfortunately, hasn't always been the case).&nbsp; But please note that it it the subsystem (falling damage; healing surge) that causes the problem, not the hit point mechanic itself.If the failing of the hit point mechanic is that it is not detailed enough for some tastes, the failing of problematic subsystems is that they add absurd elements into the game.&nbsp; When characters can routinely fall 200 feet without injury, or get up from deadly injuries as routinely as Captain Jack Harkness, credulity is stretched to the breaking point.&nbsp; There is a very large qualitative difference between &quot;undetailed&quot; and &quot;results in absurd occurances in the game world&quot;, IMHO.RC</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Raven Crowking, post: 4468090, member: 18280"] Perhaps. But I find it far less absurd than 4e. As I have pointed out now, several times, the mechanics inform play, so that an injured PC is almost never played as an uninjured PC. At least IME. Certainly anyone who understands the win conditions of the game will not wander around nearly dead as blithely as if he were at full hit points. Earlier, it was said that a wounded PC is not dazed. Certainly, he doesn't have the 3e "dazed" condition. OTOH, he is not able to evade the killing stroke as he would be able to do were he fully alert and able. That is what hit points represent. Finally, at the very least, hit points don't violate the arrow of time. RC EDIT: Here's anther way to look at it: My nine-year-old daughter has no problem understanding hit points, and has no problem understanding how hit points work in terms of both game mechanics and the win conditions of the game. Yes, the hit point mechanic is not as detailed as some, and some claim that it is unrealistic because of that lack of detail. Yes, it is important to consider before adding subsystems (which, unfortunately, hasn't always been the case). But please note that it it the subsystem (falling damage; healing surge) that causes the problem, not the hit point mechanic itself. If the failing of the hit point mechanic is that it is not detailed enough for some tastes, the failing of problematic subsystems is that they add absurd elements into the game. When characters can routinely fall 200 feet without injury, or get up from deadly injuries as routinely as Captain Jack Harkness, credulity is stretched to the breaking point. There is a very large qualitative difference between "undetailed" and "results in absurd occurances in the game world", IMHO. RC [/QUOTE]

Verification