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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jacob Lewis" data-source="post: 9760825" data-attributes="member: 6667921">[USER=7027139]@loverdrive[/USER]Funny enough, this actually connects to another thread here recently about what exactly constitutes a “hit” in RPG combat. On the surface it looked like a different question, but I think it ties directly into what you’re describing here. My response there was that you can’t really talk about a single mechanic—like to-hit rolls or hit points—in isolation. The meaning of a “hit” only becomes clear when you see how the whole system resolves it: attack, defense, damage, and the way the game defines consequences.That’s why I read your take on wounds systems as more about implementation in play than about whether the idea itself is good or bad. A wounds mechanic can look clean in theory, but if at the table it creates friction—extra bookkeeping, retroactive modifiers, slowed pacing—it becomes more trouble than it’s worth. That’s where hit points shine: they’re fire-and-forget. You only think about them when they change, and they don’t ripple into other mechanics unless you drop to zero.Where I land personally is that the problem isn’t complexity, it’s disconnection. A lot of wound mechanics feel like they’re bolted on top of a preexisting chassis instead of being part of its engine. When that happens, you’re right—they’re annoying. But when they’re integrated into the foundation of the system, they can create clarity and consequence without slowing play.That’s what I like about Daggerheart. The way it handles hits, wound severity, and armor mitigation runs intuitively, and the results tie directly into stress, hope, and fear. You don’t need to bolt on extra conditions because the consequences already feed into the other mechanics that drive the game. It doesn’t feel like an extra layer of crunch—it feels like the game showing you why the hit mattered.Now, D&D works better as-is precisely because it never had a narrative need to define hit points or wounds in the first place. It was designed around a big abstraction where you don’t ask whether you’re winded, bloodied, or just lucky—you’re “fine until you’re not.” That’s why HP fits it so well. Problems arise when people try to make the game something it isn’t by layering on fixes that address only a single part, like hit points, without rethinking the whole system. At that point, you’re no longer really playing the same game by standard rules. You're only tempting to break it, or begging it to be something else.</blockquote>

Verification