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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Wayside" data-source="post: 2939530" data-attributes="member: 8394">Which is why I said "I wouldn't say they're elegant," instead of "they aren't elegant."  <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=":)" /> At the end of the day, elegance in the context of this conversation is all about functionality, and functionality in an RPG is all about what works for you. If hit points work for you, then great.I agree, and I'm not pushing any particular solution on you, so let's set the tu quoque fallacy aside and move forward.I personally dislike hit points because of the unnecessary level of abstraction they introduce, not out of a sense of offended realism or anything like that. My guess would be that things like hit points and saving throws were originally abstracted away from stats in order to balance the classes: this way, even if my wizard has more CON than your fighter, your fighter gets more HP. It makes sense to me that the fighter should be more durable in a fight, but I think there are better ways to represent this than hit points.I brought up hit points as an example of a rules component that is simple yet not, in my view, elegant. Simple != elegant, but elegant == simple, as the post you quoted says (i.e. simplicity is necessary for elegance, but not sufficient for it). Thus, asking me to consider simpler alternatives is a bit of a lapse in reasoning here. I'm not asking for simpler or less complex.</blockquote>

Verification