Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Crazy Jerome" data-source="post: 5765379" data-attributes="member: 54877">I would say that D&amp;D hit points have always presented consistency issues. It has been a bone of contention almost since D&amp;D launched. The 4E method is the most consistent version of D&amp;D hit points ever produced (though hardly perfect). This necessarily imposed on some of the ways that people rationalized the inconsistencies, but not all. &nbsp;It didn't affect my view of hit points much at all, because all the things that people say 4E made suddenly unbelieveable were already unbelievable to me, and already rationalized has highly abstract, rough narration and pacing tools. Others had different rationalizations that also survived contact with 4E largely intact. Then others found themselves &quot;forced&quot; into new rationalizations (for them) that they were willing to accept. Others found that they could not accept the new rationalizations and/or were unwilling to be so forced.&nbsp;You can't fix that by making the rules more consistent. You'd have to go back and make them more inconsistent again, so that all those competing rationalization have a toe-hold.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Crazy Jerome, post: 5765379, member: 54877"] I would say that D&D hit points have always presented consistency issues. It has been a bone of contention almost since D&D launched. The 4E method is the most consistent version of D&D hit points ever produced (though hardly perfect). This necessarily imposed on some of the ways that people rationalized the inconsistencies, but not all. It didn't affect my view of hit points much at all, because all the things that people say 4E made suddenly unbelieveable [B]were already unbelievable to me[/B], and already rationalized has highly abstract, rough narration and pacing tools. Others had different rationalizations that also survived contact with 4E largely intact. Then others found themselves "forced" into new rationalizations (for them) that they were willing to accept. Others found that they could not accept the new rationalizations and/or were unwilling to be so forced. You can't fix that by making the rules more consistent. You'd have to go back and make them more inconsistent again, so that all those competing rationalization have a toe-hold. [/QUOTE]

Verification