NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JamesonCourage" data-source="post: 5704013" data-attributes="member: 6668292">So, if you're having to make saves before you die, is that enough of an indication that you can narrate a bad wound? I mean, your list includes "on-going bleeding damage, penalties to your attack rolls and skill checks, etc." If your character is incapacitated and having to make saves or die from being in the negatives, isn't that cause enough to narrate a "deep gash" by those terms?There seems to be some sort of gap here. In my eyes, the rules are supposed to be an abstract game model that helps progress the narration of the game. I feel like it's reasonable to have an attainable expectation of purposefully abstract rules supporting a narrative common within the genre. If the rules fall flat here, that's a problem with the rules. It might be foolish to buck against them, but the argument is, "the rule is bad for the type of narrative I'd like to see possible" and not, "the rules won't let me run my narrative, and I can't figure out why."First, I think you missed part of BryonD's quote. You left out the very short next sentence: "But that is for what I want." BryonD is saying that the rules are creating a "HUGE irreconcilable problem" for what he wants. Which, as he's indicated, is as follows:So, the real context of what he quoted was basically, "when rules get in the way of making it feel like I'm in a novel because of arbitrary game mechanics, it's fails to conform to the model I want in a game." So, you telling him that adding meaningful injuries creates a problem does not make sense within the context he gave.Second, the rules demonstrate that there is such a thing as meaningful injuries. That is, you can die from them. Obviously they're meaningful. If that's the case, it seems like narrating a "deep gash" to describe why someone drops in combat should be reasonable. After all, it meets your list of "on-going bleeding damage, penalties to your attack rolls and skill checks, etc." Some people complain when the rules go back and contradict what should be a perfectly reasonable narrative. Nobody is confused as to why this happens.The rules do support meaningful wounds. You can die from them. Narrating a wound that causes ongoing bleeding damage, as well as more than adequate penalties on attack rolls and skill checks, it seems to fit what you're looking for. And yet, the rules contradict this narrative later on, either by saying "it wasn't really that bad" or by glossing over it and letting everyone heal to full health with little explanation.The complaint is with the rules not supporting a common genre narrative. It's not "I can't get this to work." It'd be more akin to:"Doctor, I can't lift my arm.""Well, then, stop trying to lift it."It's not really satisfactory if you want to lift your arm. In this case, saying, "well, the rules don't support that narrative" is like the following:"Doctor, I can't lift my arm.""Well, you can't lift your arm."Yes, we know that. We know the rules don't fit that narrative. Saying, "that's how it works" isn't helpful, and saying "work around it" doesn't help when the goal requires that type of narrative to be an option. And, in a thread where the main question was, "why don't you like healing surges?", it seems like a more than reasonable thing to say.</blockquote>

Verification