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: 6212760" data-attributes="member: 42582">So, playing a great weapon fighter, I encounter some goblins. I choose a course of action through my character's eyes ("Who are these goblins? Should I attack them?" etc). Then, if attackg is chosen, a "gamist meta overlay pops up" - I roll a d20 to see whether my damage is W+STR, or just STR. The result is ascertained and the appropriate notation made on the hit point totals. Then I pop back into the story - Am I beating the goblins, how many are left, what do they look like they're going to do, etc.Consistency and integrity of the fiction remain cohesive enough.Now, you might point out that I never fail to kill the goblins, and regard that as not very cohesive. But I can equally point out that whether your low-level cleric can heal the woman to full health depends on whether the woman is 0-level or 10th-level. In both cases, that is, possibilities in the fiction are opened up or closed off based on the "gamist meta overlay" of hit point totals and associated mechanics.No doubt some players are happy with one of these approaches (the healing one) and not the other (the auto-damage one). But I do not have any sort of handle on any fundamental difference between them.Except if she's 10th level and I'm 1st level then I can't heal her. But I can heal her 1st level cousin who is in the ditch alongside her.In any event, damage on a miss also empowers the player to roleplay the fighter with behaviour that seems natural/organic/believable tothe story - namely, fighting things quite effectively.I don't see why damage-on-a-miss can't be played in the same way. I can see issues of habit here, or of familiarity. But not deep issues of mechanical structure.</blockquote>

Verification