Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="CleverNickName" data-source="post: 5827921" data-attributes="member: 50987">[MENTION=82555]the[/MENTION] OP:Short answer: we don't.&nbsp; But hear me out.I think the &quot;need&quot; for a soft, flexible definition of hit points came from a desire for heroic roleplay (instead of a more classic style).&nbsp; Some players prefer that their characters be able to heal themselves of damage, but not have to rely on magic to do so.&nbsp; This creates a need for explanation.&nbsp; How does a character &quot;heal&quot; himself of damage, without actually healing the damage?The answer is, well, you can't.&nbsp; So you have to redefine the word &quot;healing,&quot; or you have to redefine &quot;damage.&quot;&nbsp; And that's where this whole debate came from.It's kind of like our Federal Income Tax.&nbsp; When the Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional in 1893, the government had two choices: they could either (a) change the wording of the tax bill, or (b) change the wording of the Constitution.&nbsp; So they amended the Constitution, and presto, the FIC is no longer unconstitutional.*Some players want to play heroic, Hollywood action hero-style characters.&nbsp; And in order for this to happen, characters need a plot device that lets them heal, ignore, or otherwise recover from damage at critical moments of the story.&nbsp; For most of us, this is done on the &quot;healing&quot; side, through the use of magic spells or potions or similar devices.&nbsp; But others prefer to explain it on the &quot;damage&quot; side, changing the definition of damage so that their mechanic works.There's nothing wrong with either style of play.&nbsp; I prefer the original description of &quot;hit points&quot;, in the Basic Players Rulebook:&nbsp;This was the first definition that I ever learned, and it has always been good enough for me and my players.&nbsp; So I believe the OP is asking a loaded question...of course we don't &quot;need&quot; to redefine hit points; some of us just want to.&nbsp; And that's cool.-----*Yes, I know that I am glossing over a lot here, what with all the property taxes and Civil War funding and what-not.&nbsp; But you get the point, right?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="CleverNickName, post: 5827921, member: 50987"] [MENTION=82555]the[/MENTION] OP: Short answer: we don't. But hear me out. I think the "need" for a soft, flexible definition of hit points came from a desire for heroic roleplay (instead of a more classic style). Some players prefer that their characters be able to heal themselves of damage, but not have to rely on magic to do so. This creates a need for explanation. How does a character "heal" himself of damage, without [I]actually[/I] healing the damage? The answer is, well, you can't. So you have to redefine the word "healing," or you have to redefine "damage." And that's where this whole debate came from. It's kind of like our Federal Income Tax. When the Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional in 1893, the government had two choices: they could either (a) change the wording of the tax bill, or (b) change the wording of the Constitution. So they amended the Constitution, and presto, the FIC is no longer unconstitutional.* Some players want to play heroic, Hollywood action hero-style characters. And in order for this to happen, characters need a plot device that lets them heal, ignore, or otherwise recover from damage at critical moments of the story. For most of us, this is done on the "healing" side, through the use of magic spells or potions or similar devices. But others prefer to explain it on the "damage" side, changing the definition of damage so that their mechanic works. There's nothing wrong with either style of play. I [I]prefer[/I] the original description of "hit points", in the Basic Players Rulebook: This was the first definition that I ever learned, and it has always been good enough for me and my players. So I believe the OP is asking a loaded question...of course we don't "need" to redefine hit points; some of us just [I]want[/I] to. And that's cool. ----- [SIZE="1"]*Yes, I know that I am glossing over a lot here, what with all the property taxes and Civil War funding and what-not. But you get the point, right?[/SIZE] [/QUOTE]

Verification