Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8586515" data-attributes="member: 16814">No, the player knows this.&nbsp; There is no directed requirement to create a fictional element for the character.&nbsp; We assume this as part of the ad hoc and arbitrary fiction that might be used.&nbsp;&nbsp; I say might because I believe few tables bother with descriptions of every bit of hp loss.&nbsp;&nbsp; I say arbitrary because no description that is generated ever holds any weight past the description.&nbsp;&nbsp; Whatever you describe never has any further use in the fiction and effectively goes away once it's done.&nbsp;&nbsp; No further fiction ever keys on or uses that description.&nbsp;&nbsp; The only thing that holds any weight is the mechanical value of remaining hp.This isn't a bad thing,&nbsp; mind.&nbsp;&nbsp; Hp are valuable game tools.&nbsp;&nbsp; I'm not saying they aren't,&nbsp; and I'm not saying as hoc descriptions are bad either.&nbsp;&nbsp; I'm just pointing out how they actually work.&nbsp;&nbsp; Even in &quot;hitpoints are neat&quot; no description of injury ever has any further use in the fiction.&nbsp;&nbsp; This mode only looks at the equally arbitrary restoration of hitpoints to provide any meaning to the fiction of receiving wounds.&nbsp; The actual wounds,&nbsp; though,&nbsp; are meaningless; just the concept of wounds matters. Typo shaming?&nbsp; You felt this was going to improve discourse?Knowledge checks in D&amp;D are a terrible bit of mechanics in my book anyway.&nbsp;&nbsp; They're used either for GM info dumps or a gates on what information the GM will allow players to operate on.&nbsp;&nbsp; As such,&nbsp; they are nearly entirely a meta mechanic.&nbsp;&nbsp; They are about what information the player is to be given. As such there is no fiction output change to knowledge checks.&nbsp;&nbsp; Instead they occupy this odd halfway point where they retroactively establish what the fiction was prior to the check.&nbsp;&nbsp; Knowledge checks don't trigger a change in the fiction; they tell you what the fiction already was but the player didn't know it yet.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 8586515, member: 16814"] No, the player knows this. There is no directed requirement to create a fictional element for the character. We assume this as part of the ad hoc and arbitrary fiction that might be used. I say might because I believe few tables bother with descriptions of every bit of hp loss. I say arbitrary because no description that is generated ever holds any weight past the description. Whatever you describe never has any further use in the fiction and effectively goes away once it's done. No further fiction ever keys on or uses that description. The only thing that holds any weight is the mechanical value of remaining hp. This isn't a bad thing, mind. Hp are valuable game tools. I'm not saying they aren't, and I'm not saying as hoc descriptions are bad either. I'm just pointing out how they actually work. Even in "hitpoints are neat" no description of injury ever has any further use in the fiction. This mode only looks at the equally arbitrary restoration of hitpoints to provide any meaning to the fiction of receiving wounds. The actual wounds, though, are meaningless; just the concept of wounds matters. Typo shaming? You felt this was going to improve discourse? Knowledge checks in D&D are a terrible bit of mechanics in my book anyway. They're used either for GM info dumps or a gates on what information the GM will allow players to operate on. As such, they are nearly entirely a meta mechanic. They are about what information the player is to be given. As such there is no fiction output change to knowledge checks. Instead they occupy this odd halfway point where they retroactively establish what the fiction was prior to the check. Knowledge checks don't trigger a change in the fiction; they tell you what the fiction already was but the player didn't know it yet. [/QUOTE]

Verification