Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="FrogReaver" data-source="post: 7845213" data-attributes="member: 6795602">Yep that's a recap.Yes.  The explanation is what I gave you in the post above.  To summarize, In the original abstraction the subordinate concepts don't all need to be equal or even present in any instance of losing hp.  In yours they do.  Essentially, that difference has a direct impact on narratives that can be established with each abstraction.  Kind of.  I shouldn't have to emphasize this fact but I guess I do.  Game rules aren't typically written to tell you how things don't work.  The most I can provide you are the rules for the abstraction 5e is using - which make no mention that all the subordinate concepts of the systems hp abstraction must be equal in every instance of hp loss.  In fact we can find rules that suggest but never explicitly say the exact opposite - such that creatures normally show signs of battle when below half hp.Why would I need to explain that?  Physical durability is included in the abstraction of hp.  Characters most certainly can have their physical durability damaged as part of their hp loss.Same explanation as above.That doesn't change the abstraction..  A single instance of hp loss can be narrated using any part of 5e's abstraction.You are mixing up 2 concepts.1.  There is the concept of a specific abstraction, which has a specific structure and specific properties itself and includes specific subordinate concepts.2.  Then there is the concept of using one of those subordinate concpets to narratively explain an instance of the abstract hp mechanic.You seem to be conflating these two things quite a bit.  For example, the portion of your post I quoted right above this - you are asking why we can't 2 without changing 1.  But no one is saying that 2 can't be done without changing 1.  In fact, That's what's making this so hard to discuss, you keep bringing up examples of changing 2 as if it has anything to do with 1 at all.We can decide that ourselves (in the context of the narrative, not in the context of the abstraction).  What we cannot do is eliminate a unique subordinate concept from the abstraction without changing the abstraction.  But that doesn't mean that in each narrative instance of hp loss that every subordinate concept must be present, only that they exist as possibilities that can explain any instance of hp loss.In Conclusion,I guess it might be best to explain it this way.  The HP Abstraction includes all subordinate concepts and combinations of those concepts.  Some subset of those concepts and combinations of them can be used in narrative to explain the hp loss.To remove subordinate concepts or combinations of concepts from the abstraction then changes the abstraction - essentially reducing the set of possible explanations that can be used to narrate hp loss.  To remove them in a specific narrative explanation has no effect on the abstraction.To add a subordinate concept to an abstraction still allows for the subordinate concepts (and combinations of them) that were available before but also new ones that weren't available before.  To add a subordinate concept to a specific narrative explanation has no effect on the abstraction (unless it was a concept not originally included in the abstraction to begin with).</blockquote>

Verification