Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5956656" data-attributes="member: 42582">What Crazy Jerome said. To add my 2c worth, I think of it as "the actual process of resolution at the table models/simulates the causul process that is occurring in the gameworld".In this particular context - Gygaxian and 4e hit point people narrate hit point loss sometimes as meat, sometimes as fate. But nothing in the mechanics matches these differences in the fiction. That is a failure of process simulation.KM's proposal would impose process simulation by creating two pools - one for meat, one for fate. Now the mechanics at the table - deducting points from a pool - would reflect the underlying fiction, because when meat is hacked off you'd deduct hp, and when luck is used up you'd deduct fate points.That's fine as far as it goes, but it would have the effect of not letting me use hit points in the way that I want to use them.Yep. In my post that you replied to, I described this sort of system - the CON kicker to hp are the body points. So there is still one pool, but it has "tiers".I think that uniform recovery rate (but on a dial) should be the core, because (i) it is the closest thing to a D&D tradition, and (ii) it's simple, and therefore most amenable to modulisation.In my post that you replied to, I canvassed non-uniform healing rates of the sort you describe - body takes longer to heal than fatigue - as one obvious option for departure from the uniform recovery rate. So I'm happy for you to have what you want, but think that good design mandates it be an option rather than the default.In my preferred version of D&D - 4e - there is also a non-uniform recovery rate (the short rest/extended rest system). That would be another obvious option to stick into D&Dnext. For crystal clarity - I think my preferred hp mechanic also has to be an option, rather than the default. Otherwise modularisation won't work.To generalise: the advantage of a uniform recovery rate as core is that it makes it easier to bolt on a range of non-uniform options, most of which probably aren't compatible with one another, but each of which is comptabile with the underlying maths of damge and healing (ie substracting and replenishing points from the single pool).Nothing wrong with them. Again, I think that they are most naturally handled as options that fit around a simple core of (i) single pool, (ii) uniform rate of recovery, and (iii) binary states. (This core, obviously, is derived from OD&D and B/X, although it is more abstract than them because it allows that the "down and out" state doesn't have to be death - it can itself be tweaked for group taste.)Your "alive but taken body damage" state is a type of wound system, isn't it? I think they've indicated that a wound system might be a module they're looking at. On my suggested approach, the obvious way to do a wound system would be to link it to a system based on Body/Fatigue (=Wound/Vitatlity). But a quite different wound system could also be come up with that fits with a more 4e approach - with wounds being outside the hit point pool altogether, and tracked like diseases.I think it would make for better design if both systems used the same condition rules (if you're wounded, this happens to you) although they use different recovery rules. That way other parts of the game (say, a Cure Wounds spell) can refer to wounds without caring which particular wounds infliction and wounds recovery module you are using.Your other two states are variants on "down and out" - "down but not quite out", and "out but not dead". I think it's important that both be implementable. I discussed the second of these in the post to which you replied - the "down and out" state can be tweaked to reflect 1st ed AD&D norms (down but not quite out means you'll need a week's rest before you can start healing your hp) or 3E norms (down but not quite out leaves you fine when you're stabilised) or 4e norms (down but not quite out leaves you fine when you recover, and recovery can be a matter of healing or morale or both).I don't have any suggestions on how to implement the first. I know in 3E there are feats and prestige classes that can do it. I think also in 4e (though I've not seen them in play). I'm sure there's a better way of approaching it then just tacking on feats, though.Anyway, I hope that makes some sense about how I think modularisation can work to give everyone the options they want, without making anyone take on options and interpretations they don't want, and without requiring major surgery to the underlying spine of the game every time an option is switched on or off. And I hope that also explains why I think a single pool, with a uniform recovery rate, and with a binary state, should be the core around which those modules are constructed.</blockquote>

Verification