Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="robertliguori" data-source="post: 4155967" data-attributes="member: 47776">Point the first: I may be misremembering.  In what cases to simple bullet wounds in cut scenes inflict crippling injury?  There appears to be a distinct corellary between proximity to crashing helicopters and long-term injury in the CoDiverse, and headshots are generally always lethal (to you as well on the hardest difficulty level).  Was there a specific scenario in which something happened in a cutscene or scripted sequence that the gameplay lead you to believe shouldn't have happened?Point the second: There is a difference between rules as Newtonian physics and rules as Aristotelian physics.  A good set of rules is like Newtonian physics; they accurately describe the game reality within the vast majority of the cases that come up in play.  The CoD mechanic reflects general expectations; if you get shot a little, it is possible that it was a graze and you can duck behind cover and take a moment to recover, but if you get shot a lot at once, the odds of this happening are negligible, and you die.  The edge case in this scenario is popping up to get shot, ducking back down, popping up again, and repeating.  In this case, the rules fail to accurately describe the effect desired.  However, in general, the rules produce the result desired.In Aristotelian rules, someone gets a bright idea, makes it a rule, then complains when the result that emerges isn't what they wanted.  In Aristotelian rules, there is little actual connection between the outcome desired and what the rules actually produce.  The D&D leveled-NPC-by-community guidelines, and many aspects of the magic system seem to be Aristotelian, as does the version of the Divine Challenge power from DDXP.Mechanics aren't just fun or not-fun.  I personally find turning Aristotelian mechanics into simulation rules and observing the world that results very fun.  Mechanics have to be fun in order for there to be a game, of course; a purely-simulationist CoD4 that implemented realistic bullet injuries, disabled saving, and uninstalled itself upon character death would not be fun to play.  However, even within the constraint of 'must be a fun system', rules can still be rated on a scale of how well they, when interpreted, produce the results they were designed for.</blockquote>

Verification