Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="DND_Reborn" data-source="post: 7840568" data-attributes="member: 6987520">Fair enough. I understand how sometimes we can become a bit harsh in our efforts to make certain people understand our POV. I know, I've done it more than once myself. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />I completely agree that new players, especially without any prior gaming experience, expect hit points to more equate to meat points. Look at video games. Your health goes down when you are hit, not when you are missed or dodged, right? So it is a bit of a stretch to explain how things are different in D&amp;D.Do they have to be? Nope. You could play it as you said, but as I said it changes the feel of the game too much for me, personally. Now, I feel this way also about AC and super high HP values compared to 1E/2E that I mostly played. I don't really like the &quot;you-hit-most-of-the-time-but-it-takes-forever-to-kill-your-foe&quot; idea. I prefer the &quot;you-hit-less-often-but-need-less-hits-to-kill-your-foe&quot; mindset.I mean it is basically the difference between:5-5-5-miss-5-5-miss-5-5-5-miss-5-deadand10-miss-miss-miss-15-miss-10-miss-miss-miss-miss-10-deadBoth take 12 rounds. Both take 45 hp of damage. But the second requires less work on the DM's part. And yet the first is suppose to make the player &quot;feel more like they are accomplishing something.&quot; yawnComparing your initial post in the other thread, there is certainly nothing wrong with trying to make D&amp;D more like that, but I also think you need to find more of a balance between realism, historical accuracy, simplicity, and fun. IME, the first two are often at odds with the last two. Given the limited time most groups have to play, the first two are often sacrificed in pursuit of more of the last two. If you don't find them at odds in your idea and for your table--well, I'll just leave you to it and hope it works out for you.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="DND_Reborn, post: 7840568, member: 6987520"] Fair enough. I understand how sometimes we can become a bit harsh in our efforts to make certain people understand our POV. I know, I've done it more than once myself. ;) I completely agree that new players, especially without any prior gaming experience, expect hit points to more equate to meat points. Look at video games. Your health goes down when you are hit, not when you are missed or dodged, right? So it is a bit of a stretch to explain how things are different in D&D. Do they have to be? Nope. You could play it as you said, but as I said it changes the feel of the game too much for me, personally. Now, I feel this way also about AC and super high HP values compared to 1E/2E that I mostly played. I don't really like the "you-hit-most-of-the-time-but-it-takes-forever-to-kill-your-foe" idea. I prefer the "you-hit-less-often-but-need-less-hits-to-kill-your-foe" mindset. I mean it is basically the difference between: 5-5-5-miss-5-5-miss-5-5-5-miss-5-dead and 10-miss-miss-miss-15-miss-10-miss-miss-miss-miss-10-dead Both take 12 rounds. Both take 45 hp of damage. But the second requires less work on the DM's part. And yet the first is suppose to make the player "feel more like they are accomplishing something." [I]yawn[/I] Comparing your initial post in the other thread, there is certainly nothing wrong with trying to make D&D more like that, but I also think you need to find more of a balance between realism, historical accuracy, simplicity, and fun. IME, the first two are often at odds with the last two. Given the limited time most groups have to play, the first two are often sacrificed in pursuit of more of the last two. If you don't find them at odds in your idea and for your table--well, I'll just leave you to it and hope it works out for you. [/QUOTE]

Verification