Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 6290807" data-attributes="member: 4937">With respect to rationalizing the rules of 4e and narrating them coherently, I'm sure that pemerton knows vastly more than idea and can offer a vastly more coherent description of 4e play than I could.&nbsp; I simply don't know enough about 4e to comment, save that I do know that it produces a theory of the game that is vastly different than the theory of the game from 1e through 3e.&nbsp; The 1e DMG still offers the definitive description of what hit points represent as far as I'm concerned.I'm ready to assume - in part because I think pemerton runs 4e better than its designers do - that if there is a coherent description of 4e hit points, that he can offer it.&nbsp; However, pemerton's descriptions of hit points are just not things I'm ready to accept for a wide variety of reasons.&nbsp; In the past he's compared them to fatigue.&nbsp; Here he goes further and suggests that hit points are markers of courage and morale.&nbsp; Perhaps this works in 4e.&nbsp; I can't say.&nbsp; But it doesn't work for me.As I play the game, which is a heavily modified version of 3.0, characters - both PC's and NPC's - can indirectly observe their own hit points and attempt to assess the hit points of others.&nbsp; This is necessary in might opinion to be internally consistant, and in general doing so produces consistency in just about everything but the 'cure' spells.&nbsp; This consistency gap is one I'm aware of, and I can partially close it, but a full closure requires a rules rewrite and so far a set of rules that closes that consistency gap and is also mechanically balanced and interesting hasn't suggested itself to me.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 6290807, member: 4937"] With respect to rationalizing the rules of 4e and narrating them coherently, I'm sure that pemerton knows vastly more than idea and can offer a vastly more coherent description of 4e play than I could. I simply don't know enough about 4e to comment, save that I do know that it produces a theory of the game that is vastly different than the theory of the game from 1e through 3e. The 1e DMG still offers the definitive description of what hit points represent as far as I'm concerned. I'm ready to assume - in part because I think pemerton runs 4e better than its designers do - that if there is a coherent description of 4e hit points, that he can offer it. However, pemerton's descriptions of hit points are just not things I'm ready to accept for a wide variety of reasons. In the past he's compared them to fatigue. Here he goes further and suggests that hit points are markers of courage and morale. Perhaps this works in 4e. I can't say. But it doesn't work for me. As I play the game, which is a heavily modified version of 3.0, characters - both PC's and NPC's - can indirectly observe their own hit points and attempt to assess the hit points of others. This is necessary in might opinion to be internally consistant, and in general doing so produces consistency in just about everything but the 'cure' spells. This consistency gap is one I'm aware of, and I can partially close it, but a full closure requires a rules rewrite and so far a set of rules that closes that consistency gap and is also mechanically balanced and interesting hasn't suggested itself to me. [/QUOTE]

Verification