Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5956379" data-attributes="member: 42582">What you're not explaining is why those of us who have a perfectly functional system at the moment, and which we can have alongside those who want hp as meat without splitting hp into two pools, should prefer a different system that will change the way our games play.As I posted upthread (but before you added in this edit), it's because a tier system - first deplete the fate portion, then deplete the meat portion, imposes mechanical limits and narrative constraints that I don't want, and don't currently suffer from.For example, suppose a PC falls down a pit and takes damage. I can narrate this as a sprained ankle (which is meat hp, on your model). And then suppose the warlord uses "Inspiring Word", or the player spends a healing surge. I can narrate this as inspiration/resolution to carry on despite the sprained ankle. But on your model this isn't possible, because no fate points have been lost, and so none can be restored.That's not just semantics. It's actual possibilities in gameplay. Your system is a form of process simulation. I don't want process simulation in my hp system. (If I did, I'd use Roger Musson's system, which I've known about for nearly 30 years.)Again, pools. And "explicitness", here, equals process simulation.I recall from an earlier thread that you think that fortune-in-the-middle, and the flexibility in corresponence between narration and mechanics that it opens up, is undesirable in an RPG. So I'm not surprised that you are putting forward a model that leaves no room for fortune-in-the-middle.But some of us like fortune in the middle. And not because we're myopic fetishists, but because it creates different possibilities in gameplay.This certainly reads like some of us are playing it wrong - our approach does "more harm than good".</blockquote>

Verification