Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Arch-Fiend" data-source="post: 7840573" data-attributes="member: 7016641">if its people initial expectation of how the game works when they first get it and weve had a constant stream of people since the game was made in the 70s who need to be &quot;corrected&quot; about what hitpoints actually represent, i dont think its that different that what most people expect D&amp;D to evoke. i think D&amp;D got a lot of critisism back in the day for not being realistic by a bunch of people who the makers of the game looked up to and subsiquiently tried to defend their game from by implying it is actually realistic. the congental issue is that the game as its evolved has added mechanics to damage which reflect an interpritation of damage which i think and i think a lot of people first impressions comes of as being physical. one does not simply have different types of damage from weapons without the idea they do different things to the body and that what they can do to a body matters in a broader context than &quot;damage is damage&quot;that being said it doesent invalidate the use of the system to be anything game masters and players want it to be. but i very much stand against the idea of correcting first impressions of the game unless those first impressions are unhelpful (example of an unhelpful first impression: &quot;this game is dumb and for nerds&quot;). which is why i back up the &quot;hitpoints are supernatural durability&quot; interpretation of the game and why i also dont think the game actually needs to change anything mechanically to fit that interpretation. do i think D&amp;D needs to outright state that is the correct interpretation? no, though i do wish they would stop entertaining the idea that there is a correct one especially if that correct one is the one i argue against in my thesis. i would likewise argue if D&amp;D wants to argue there is a correct interpretation of what hitpoints are, i think the best one for the most people is that hitpoints is durability because of how much semblance damage systems in the game have to our real world concept of body damage.ultimately im not going to make a meatpoint system of D&amp;D because i already think it is a meatpoint system and i dont think you need to change a single thing about the game to see it that way, what i have done is made a homebrew when i stayed up to late talking to a guy randomly about his game and thought &quot;you know this might work&quot; and then i made a homebrew for a game i dont even play. but im proud of it atleast.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Arch-Fiend, post: 7840573, member: 7016641"] if its people initial expectation of how the game works when they first get it and weve had a constant stream of people since the game was made in the 70s who need to be "corrected" about what hitpoints actually represent, i dont think its that different that what most people expect D&D to evoke. i think D&D got a lot of critisism back in the day for not being realistic by a bunch of people who the makers of the game looked up to and subsiquiently tried to defend their game from by implying it is actually realistic. the congental issue is that the game as its evolved has added mechanics to damage which reflect an interpritation of damage which i think and i think a lot of people first impressions comes of as being physical. one does not simply have different types of damage from weapons without the idea they do different things to the body and that what they can do to a body matters in a broader context than "damage is damage" that being said it doesent invalidate the use of the system to be anything game masters and players want it to be. but i very much stand against the idea of correcting first impressions of the game unless those first impressions are unhelpful (example of an unhelpful first impression: "this game is dumb and for nerds"). which is why i back up the "hitpoints are supernatural durability" interpretation of the game and why i also dont think the game actually needs to change anything mechanically to fit that interpretation. do i think D&D needs to outright state that is the correct interpretation? no, though i do wish they would stop entertaining the idea that there is a correct one especially if that correct one is the one i argue against in my thesis. i would likewise argue if D&D wants to argue there is a correct interpretation of what hitpoints are, i think the best one for the most people is that hitpoints is durability because of how much semblance damage systems in the game have to our real world concept of body damage. ultimately im not going to make a meatpoint system of D&D because i already think it is a meatpoint system and i dont think you need to change a single thing about the game to see it that way, what i have done is made a homebrew when i stayed up to late talking to a guy randomly about his game and thought "you know this might work" and then i made a homebrew for a game i dont even play. but im proud of it atleast. [/QUOTE]

Verification