Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Arch-Fiend" data-source="post: 7840559" data-attributes="member: 7016641">well maybe im snappy but i think i probably just phrased myself poorly while trying to be precise in my language and completely honest, thats kinda sharp and blunt at the same time, but its to avoid misunderstandings (not that i cant cause that to happen for other causes).sorry for the implication of a challenge, but you did reply to &quot;why cant you do something&quot; with an answer implying you couldn't, when you knew you could so i felt like it required the challenge.i understand the desire for something gritter, i think you have mentioned more games that could stand in for D&amp;D than anyone else so far in this thread, so you certainly have your options.the reason why ive been advocating so strongly for the &quot;hitpoints as meat points&quot; thing goes back into my defense of the idea that damage is very reflective of the physical, because i dont like the idea of so many new people coming to the game and seeing how it is and being told they are wrong for the way they naturally interpret the language and the way the mechanics seem to imply how damage works simply because people say hitpoints does something that runs contrary to their intuition. i think gameplay should try to be intuitive, and my entire point in my first post on this thread was about what the mechanics of the game imply to people when they look at them at face value and the typical experience a new player will come to the game with.when new players come to the game i think they see it the way ive presented in the first post of this thread, and i dont just think that because i think that way to, i sat down and really looked at the way these mechanics work and play off of each other, i wouldn't have sat there and listed every check that constitution and strength bonuses can be applied to in the game to get a general idea about what they actually represent if i didn't want to try to approach this with as little of my own bias as i could.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Arch-Fiend, post: 7840559, member: 7016641"] well maybe im snappy but i think i probably just phrased myself poorly while trying to be precise in my language and completely honest, thats kinda sharp and blunt at the same time, but its to avoid misunderstandings (not that i cant cause that to happen for other causes). sorry for the implication of a challenge, but you did reply to "why cant you do something" with an answer implying you couldn't, when you knew you could so i felt like it required the challenge. i understand the desire for something gritter, i think you have mentioned more games that could stand in for D&D than anyone else so far in this thread, so you certainly have your options. the reason why ive been advocating so strongly for the "hitpoints as meat points" thing goes back into my defense of the idea that damage is very reflective of the physical, because i dont like the idea of so many new people coming to the game and seeing how it is and being told they are wrong for the way they naturally interpret the language and the way the mechanics seem to imply how damage works simply because people say hitpoints does something that runs contrary to their intuition. i think gameplay should try to be intuitive, and my entire point in my first post on this thread was about what the mechanics of the game imply to people when they look at them at face value and the typical experience a new player will come to the game with. when new players come to the game i think they see it the way ive presented in the first post of this thread, and i dont just think that because i think that way to, i sat down and really looked at the way these mechanics work and play off of each other, i wouldn't have sat there and listed every check that constitution and strength bonuses can be applied to in the game to get a general idea about what they actually represent if i didn't want to try to approach this with as little of my own bias as i could. [/QUOTE]

Verification