Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ratskinner" data-source="post: 6304685" data-attributes="member: 6688937">I think that depends on the "fail" in question. Does the hero fail to eventually resolve the issue?...usually not. Does the hero win every single encounter along the way?....usually not. Harry Dresden (since you brought him up) makes a habit of "losing" almost every encounter up to the last one. Also, that brings up the problem that others have mentioned...i.e. the guarantee of player victory. If we're going to ensure the PCs victory and ignore any consequences along the way....then why are we even tracking HP?I disagree. I notice that fictional heroes often change tactics in response to their ongoing injuries/consequences. So, while on the broader scale, the hero may win, the injuries can change how. Traditional D&D HP sortof have that, but only in one dimension and without any real narrative meat. (i.e. "Help! I'm low on HP!") That might make a PC cautious, or more likely to retreat, but it doesn't make them favor their right side, or fight defensively until their vision clears, or...any number of things like that.That's not a bad theory, but my experiences with games like Fate and MHRP would argue that the existence of the team rather than solo hero is not a determinant factor. The quick healing might be more of a factor, as those games resist the "fast-healing" vibe of D&D mechanically*.Well, that's the thing isn't it? The traditional HP system is fine-fine-fine-dead. Not only is that consistent with the mechanics, but you were the one arguing the the characters should be cognizant of the game-rules as counting as their world's physics, weren't you? If so, then the PCs are perfectly aware of their health, stamina, whatever-else-HP-represent as functioning that way. To them, all the sucking chest wounds and arrows-to-the-knee are irrelevant!...and they act it! Thus, the HP system ends up not emulating the fiction well, unless the fiction in question is the Goblins! webcomic.Also, I very much think there's a limit of how directly one can interpret things from a book/movie in game terms. People tend to see what they want to see. (i.e. Aragorn's a Ranger! No, he's obviously multiclass Ranger-Paladin; Obviously the best system to do LotR would be 1e/2e/3e/4e! etc. etc.) In this case, since HP represent intangibles as well as tangible damage...it can be very difficult to discern when damage is actually taken. Heck, sometimes reasonable people can disagree on whether an event in fiction represented magical action or just excellent mundane ability! I think about the only decent comparison happens in the other direction: start with the fiction that the game produced, and see if that achieved what you wanted.Of course, (I feel obliged to re-iterate here) the importance of any of this is very much dependent on your playstyle. If you are a hardcore "gamey" or Gamist player, then HP (probably) work excellently for you! If, on the other hand, you are strongly interested in either the story or simulative aspects of rpging, they likely don't. Since most players fall somewhere in the middle of that morass, HP "sorta" work for them.*That is, in Fate, consequences come in different values. The higher the value, the more damage(stress) that consequence absorbs, but also the longer it takes before you are allowed to recover. That doesn't prevent a D&D-like narrative, though! If you want characters to be repeatedly raised, just make Death a lesser consequence!</blockquote>

Verification