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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JamesonCourage" data-source="post: 5807630" data-attributes="member: 6668292">I think that's part of the problem, for me. Narrating wounds with the 4e method (or non-3e method) of hit points (representing wounds, luck, morale, fatigue, fate, divine protection, etc.).That is, someone takes a hit. If you describe it, it could be wrong. A Warlord could shout, and it was mainly morale. A Cleric could heal, and obviously it was physical. You could describe it as a superficial wound (bad wounds saved for when someone drops), but if someone drops, you have the 4e Schrodinger's wounds issue (is he badly injured? We won't know until he gets up or bleeds out).The current method makes narration hard. That's why I prefer the two pool split (in my RPG, I have HP [wounds] and THP [fatigue]). If one is damaged, you know what it hits, what it effects, and how mechanics should interact with it. The narration is straightforward. Took HP damage? Wound. Took THP damage? Dodged, but it's tiring you out. Took THP and HP damage? You dodged some, but got hit anyways (though not as badly as it could have been).I support the two pools for easy narration as we go. I don't like "retconning" the narrative, because it pulls my players out of immersion momentarily. That happens enough as it is. I know it's subjective, and I know it's a more simulation-oriented viewpoint, but I think it contributes to the disconnect for a lot of players (which is why the "dissociated mechanics" article struck a chord for so many people).At any rate, that's my thoughts on it. As always, play what you like <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification