Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Arch-Fiend" data-source="post: 7840533" data-attributes="member: 7016641">so your arguing that because the mechanic called hitpoints is abstract to the point of reflecting no narrative to describe how damage reduces hitpoints (dispute the fact that the game actually says what hitpoints reflect and thus implies what losing them represents) that the far more complex system of damage and friends (other mechanics playing off of damage) doesn't reflect one? thats a simple argument to make where "this one mechanic can be whatever i want it to be so what every other mechanic that effects it appears to do doesn't represent anything concrete either" the only logical flaws with the theory is when it breaks down, when the rules actually require damage to be physical or when it makes no sense for damage to not be physical, which are a few times, which ill say isint enough to definitively say that damage is physical, but it is enough for me to say it reflects being physical. and thus my thesisyou've had your say now ill have mine potion seller, your a rascal, a rascal with no respect for people who post 7 paragraph long thesis's on game design with reference to popular games. no respect for anything except your constant pandering to the bandwagon of everyone agreeing with you. breaks down in tearsim not trying to force assumptions onto the meaning of hp, at least ones that wernt already there, i took the assumption of what hitpoints are, a LOT of people agreed with that assumption even though they thought what i ment was that the assumption is wrong and that hp should reflect something else, which i never said until i argued for ways to deal with the ludonarrative dissonance the game creates if you take the narrative for health and contrast it with the implied narrative of the mechanics for damage.i have tried to argue that "hey these mechanics damage have seem to reflect something" if thats forcing an assumption then throw me in the brig, i think its simply saying "yes you can play abstract, but dont be surprised when players new and experienced at the game imagine these rules to mean something concrete because of how much the mechanics reflect the idea we often have about what damage is in reality, physical"ive argued various times the viable alternatives can exist, if you can find where ive said "you shouldnt do this because my reasons" please quote me. just because you can create viable alternatives does not mean those alternatives better reflect the system as ive described it, if you want to do that, your going to have to actually try and break down my arguments for how it actually reflects what i think it does instead of just saying "but mah abstracts" a book full of blank pieces of paper is abstract until you write the players handbook on it.</blockquote>

Verification