Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7841400" data-attributes="member: 16814">Here's an uncomfortable way to view hitpoints:&nbsp; they are a post hoc narrative device.&nbsp; Ever time you &quot;hit&quot; it's lethal, or defeating, whichever term you want.&nbsp; The DM tells the player they're hit and defeated, unless they want to buy off the hit with hitpoints.&nbsp; The cost is determined either randomly or has a fixed value.&nbsp; If the player can pay, then they can narrate the &quot;hit&quot; however they want (or let the DM do it, depending on the table).&nbsp; Different damage types in this construct are cost adjustment tools.&nbsp; If your character is resistant to fire, for instance, then the cost to pay off fire damage is lowered.&nbsp; If they are vulnerable, the cost is higher.&nbsp; That's how damage types play in.&nbsp; Poison, in this case, represents the danger of the strike, not actual damage to the PC if it's paid off -- so some attacks cost more to pay off with hitpoints because they're costlier.This framework works for everything, and is simple enough in understanding that you can automate it by just declaring the buy-off cost on a hit (the damage) and expecting the player to deduct the cost unless they specifically decide that this strike indeed goes home and kills/defeats them (or engages the death saving throw mechanic in 4/5e).&nbsp; The assumption here is that players will, of course, want to buy off as many hits as they can.This leaves narration of a hit the doesn't defeat as a function of the fiction at the table, not the mechanics.&nbsp; It also means hitpoints do not represent anything specifically until a specific payout of them is rendered in the fiction for that single payoff -- every payoff is different.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 7841400, member: 16814"] Here's an uncomfortable way to view hitpoints: they are a post hoc narrative device. Ever time you "hit" it's lethal, or defeating, whichever term you want. The DM tells the player they're hit and defeated, unless they want to buy off the hit with hitpoints. The cost is determined either randomly or has a fixed value. If the player can pay, then they can narrate the "hit" however they want (or let the DM do it, depending on the table). Different damage types in this construct are cost adjustment tools. If your character is resistant to fire, for instance, then the cost to pay off fire damage is lowered. If they are vulnerable, the cost is higher. That's how damage types play in. Poison, in this case, represents the danger of the strike, not actual damage to the PC if it's paid off -- so some attacks cost more to pay off with hitpoints because they're costlier. This framework works for everything, and is simple enough in understanding that you can automate it by just declaring the buy-off cost on a hit (the damage) and expecting the player to deduct the cost unless they specifically decide that this strike indeed goes home and kills/defeats them (or engages the death saving throw mechanic in 4/5e). The assumption here is that players will, of course, want to buy off as many hits as they can. This leaves narration of a hit the doesn't defeat as a function of the fiction at the table, not the mechanics. It also means hitpoints do not represent anything specifically until a specific payout of them is rendered in the fiction for that single payoff -- every payoff is different. [/QUOTE]

Verification