Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="robertliguori" data-source="post: 4122428" data-attributes="member: 47776">Yes, more options is good.  Labeling the sub-optimal or specialized options as such is necessary, and segregating them to remove distraction, but leaving them there for the times when you really do need to give an ice-cream cone to an anthropomorphic vulture, is ideal.Common sense tells me magic doesn't work, dragons can't fly, and drama fails miserably in the face of cold reality.  Common sense is therefore a piss-poor method of adjudicating the physics of a world with magic, monsters, and narrative causality.Rules are more than the physics of the world; they are a set of shared expectations. If my character has 200 hit points, that means something different than a character with 190 vitality points and 10 wound points, and I should not see results expected from VP/WP in a HP system.If the task of writing a rules system to match common sense is too much (as it generally is), then the least I expect of a GM is to outline clearly "Although the rules imply the outcome would be X, the actual outcome is Y, because the rules fail to take into account confounding factor Z."</blockquote>