Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Khur" data-source="post: 4157029" data-attributes="member: 5583">What's also missed by "I take a sword (or M16 round) through the gut and get back up" points of view is that the people who have them are choosing that interpretation of the action, rather than choosing to imagine something more compatible with the letter, spirit, and results of the mechanics. They're choosing that interpretation without regard to what the rules say HP are. This has been said a bunch of times, but apparently it doesn’t get through: Nothing in the rules says that every hit is a wounding blow. In fact, the description of what HP are actively says otherwise.Now, that choice of interpretation might be somewhat valid, since the D&D game is an individualized one. I say “somewhat,” because as I said, the rules don’t support the "sword through the gut and get back up" interpretation. But it seems really strange for someone who doesn’t actually like "sword through the gut and get back up" action to stick to that interpretation despite the fact that this interpretation ruins his or her sense of immersion.Really, anyone who’s doing that is creating his or her own problem. Since plenty of other interpretations exist and are actually supported by the D&D rules, it’s hardly fair to say the problem is with the D&D rules (or any other rules that are similar). It’s not.And I’m not saying that the "sword through the gut and get back up" interpretation is bad if it’s fun for you and your group. Then it’s fine. I have played with a guy who loved that interpretation, and that interpretation can be valid for certain settings with weird world conceits. But hating it and actively choosing it anyway, especially for a campaign setting that doesn't support it, seems really weird, like an addiction or something.My players and I endeavor to actually create immersion rather than actively hindering it. No ruleset we’ve used, and we’ve used a lot, has fully supported direct interpretation from mechanical interaction to world action. Sure, the results of the D&D game’s mechanical interactions aren’t always easy to interpret within the scope of what’s happening in the world.  Some games make that easier, but those same games are often bad at the epic fantasy fun the D&D game portrays—at least without some tinkering. That has always been true about D&D play.Sometimes we ignore the difficulty of in-world explanations and get on with the game. Other times we come up with cool interpretations on the fly. And sometimes we even analyze the situation after the game session is over and come up with what must have happened, extending the fun of the game into nongame time.The thing is, gamist elements have never truly hindered our simulation. We always choose the good story. That is, we always choose the fun.</blockquote>

Verification