Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 5602011" data-attributes="member: 18280">Please note the context.  It is a response to question askin why I believe that Special Effects systems, which do not use hit points, do not work.  I am not saying that such a chart cannot be used -- I am saying that such a chart is unwieldy to use without a hit point component.  I am arguing thatHit points + Special Effects works admirably. Hit points alone work. Special Effects alone are dismal.So, rather than saying "Our mileage has, very simply, varied", say perhaps that "Raven Crowking has, very simply, failed to communicate to me adequately."Again, my main argument, stated another way:Hit points systems beat beans over any system without hit points (or analogue thereunto). Hit points + special effects beats beans over hit points alone.I seem to recall a claim that nothing happens in the stories that could be best described by hit point attrition.  In fact, Conan frequently suffers minor wounds that do not slow him down -- exactly what hit points model.  I could go back upthread and find the original quote, if needed.  Or we could simply discuss the important bit:  Hit points do model what happens in a REH extremely well.I'm going to direct you to a link, which you may read or may not, but it contains a lot of my own blather which is important in understanding my response.<a href="http://ravencrowking.blogspot.com/2011/05/c-is-for-choices-context-and.html" target="_blank">Raven Crowking's Nest: C is for Choices, Context, and Consequence (Part I)</a>If all you are interested in is a "fantasy novel" type game, where either (1) the GM determines the plot or (2) the players take a large part of the GM role while playing, then I will grant that such a system can work.  However, I would still deem it inferior to hit points.Moreover, if you are interested in a "fantasy world" type game, where the GM prepares the game setting, and the player choices drive the action in the game, then you have removed a portion of decision making from the PCs.  The hit point mechanic allows the players to determine what physical shape the characters are in, and allows them to role-play and make decisions accordingly.  Removing that mechanic prevents the players from making decisions related to just how injured they are.  Rather than have a textured state, rich in context, you have a binary state, with context stripped away.Now, the logical response is that you can have a track that measures penalties or bonuses to that "roll to hurt" based on how injured it already is.  But, then, that measure is really just hit points by another name.Are we referring to 3e's immersion in lava rules here?  Because, certainly, in 1e the DM is empowered to just say, "The stone block crushes you.  You die." or "You fall in lava.  You die."In combat, the hit point mechanic is not intended to be taken as 1 hp = 1 hp.  The amount of damage taken by an actual hit is determined by comparing damage dealt to effect.  If a 100 hp fighter and a 6 hp fighter both take 10 hp damage, the 6 hp fighter may be run through, while the 100 hp fighter has simply dodged to one side....perhaps taking the slightest of nicks from the blade as it glides past his ear.RC</blockquote>

Verification