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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ahnehnois" data-source="post: 6153374" data-attributes="member: 17106">Well, they're both pretty bizarre.The term "rpg" is applied pretty broadly. However, I think that-regardless of what you call things-there is an important spectrum of narrative control, ranging between some games where a player is very strictly limited to his character's perspective and abilities, and games where the player has far-ranging narrative control and is not tied as tightly to his character (and is less concerned with "playing his role"). There is a difference. Call it what you will.On some level, yes. I just happen to think that the effects of hit point damage could be understood easily, while the experience is unlikely to be understood, even though it is conceivably comprehensible. Again, shades of gray.True. None of the rules elements we might discuss are likely to map on to reality all that well.I don't think they need to be closely modeled to our own. However, I do think there has to be some (very minimal) standard for how closely. You may be arguing that hit points are actually below that standard (as I often do).Yep. I'd say that's pretty much D&D right there. Crazy physics.Well, that's pretty mind-bending. There are games that I do read that way, but D&D definitely is not one of them.To say that hit points mean something and daily ability uses does involve setting an arbitrary bar for "reasonableness" somewhere. But I don't see how we can make or play a game (or have this discussion) without setting that bar somewhere. I think it's a pretty easy call, no debate required, to say that hit points are on one side of the reasonableness bar, and martial daily abilities are on the other side, but if your bar is different then that's that.</blockquote>

Verification