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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Storm-Bringer" data-source="post: 4159534" data-attributes="member: 57832">The best laid plans of mice and men oft go awry.Here is where the arguments tend to fall down.  D&D is not a movie, a novel, a television show, or a stage play.  D&D is a game.  A role playing game.  While some comparisons are useful for designing a particular adventure or campaign, the entertainment industry has an entirely different purpose.John McClane isn't tough because he has hit points and healing surges.  He is tough because the story calls for it.  Because the movie wants to show that an experienced, no-nonsense, street cop from Detroit with limited resources can beat a group of sophisticated, well-funded criminals from Europe single handedly.  In other words, "America, f- Yeah!".  The people with undesirable attributes die right on schedule, while McClane takes out the bad guys one at a time.  From the opening credits of Die Hard to the final notes on Live Free or Die Hard, there was absolutely no question that John McClane would be alive through the entire series.Hit points, in that light, can certainly be regarded as 'script immunity'.  But only in the most superficial manner, because hit points will eventually run out.  John McClane had infinite script immunity.  It's not that he could absorb more damage than the minor characters, it's that he didn't get lethally injured.  If there had been a scene where he was shot in the face with a shotgun, he would have been dead.  His script immunity was that he didn't get shot in the face.  Not that he could absorb the damage, or shrug it off, or work through the pain.  He simply didn't get lethal wounds within the context of the movie*.  Hit points are not the objectively worst mechanic for that, but you have to take into account that John McClane effectively had infinite hit points.If that is the kind of game that appeals to you, go for it.  Happy gaming!  I would thoroughly enjoy reading about the wild exploits your players get into and out of again.However, there are other ways to play.  And that is the crux of the whole argument.  The dev team seems to think that this cinematic play is objectively best for everyone**.  If I interpret things correctly, the entire marketing scheme has been to highlight all the 'cool' action movie things you can do.  As evidenced by the discussions here and on other boards, not everyone wants an action movie game.  At least not action movie only.  Certainly, wuxia, swashbuckling, larger-than-life cinematics and so on have a place in the rules.  Making that virtually the only playstyle is, by definition, limiting.  Using existing rules to boost characters up in level for more cinematic play is a bit time-consuming at character generation.  Ripping out or changing rules whole cloth (which cascades to other rules, sometimes unintentionally) for a grittier style is a massive undertaking.  If you are looking for a wide appeal, the former is a good design, the latter is not.*Of course, even the best case scenario of getting a bullet in the shoulder is severe pain in that arm for the rest of one's life.  Entertainment takes certain liberties; see The Last Action Hero**And before someone chimes in with "4e lets you change that!", I am not going to spend $100+ for 600 pages of rules I will ultimately not use.</blockquote>

Verification