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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Andor" data-source="post: 6353833" data-attributes="member: 1879">No, no they aren't. As I explained earlier in the thread they are in world derivable by character in the world. Your counter claim was that the GM would have to flub the results to maintain your own mental model. Which is not a counter arguement, the GM can change the law of gravity if he feels like it.How is that a counter-arguement? That only dispells the idea that HP are purely, and only 'meat points', an idea no one here has advanced. It is at best a strawman argument.Interpretations of Hit Points differ, as I've said I interpret them as the souls ability to cling to the mortal frame. You should consider btw that in a world where every being is confirmed to have a soul which survives after death every death is a supernatural event, no less magical than a lifeball. Every one.You literally just said that if you ignore the resolution mechanic there is no chance for failure. In what game exactly is that not true? A craft skill in D&D in a binary resolution system, although you could always make it a skill challange sort of affair. I know a lot of games and I can't think of a single one where a non-magical craft system works any differently.Are you complaining about the binary resolution system (exactly the same as the one in RQ only with 1/5th the granularity,) or are you complaining about the advancement system? Those are two very different things. No. 2e NWPs were exactly the same as 3e skills, only less granular. It was still binary resolution, although I'm in a 2e game right now and we use the amount you beat the check by to gauge degree is success, so...It doesn't. It also doesn't preclude dance fighting. So what? All combat systems are abstract at some level. In RQ a sword blow (aside from a critical hit) is only very slightly more detailed than a D&D sword blow (in that I know I hit the arm instead of just somewhere.) There is nothing in the RQ rules to prevent the FF1 combat either, is there?Yes, there is. They can stab it with a pin and count how many poke it takes for them to die. To maintain your stance requires the GM to cheat when they do so in order to keep the narrative distance your position requires.No, no you don't. You keep getting hung up on sim when you really mean granularity. Any combat system has flaws and places where the sim breaks down or gives absurd results. For example in RQ if I get an arm chopped off it doesn't reduce the amount of damage to the torso it takes to kill me. Why? Didn't I lose any blood? Am I immune to shock? Why am I not taking a penalty to maneuver checks now that I'm off balance?And what is the difference between having a 33% in a skill in RQ and a 38% in a skill? Oh right, 5% chance to succeed in a binary resolution system, just like +1 to a skill in D&D.Actually several people have said, repeatedly, that D&D does D&D great. All game engines are resolution systems. All of them portray, sim if you will, game worlds. And all of the have flaws. All of them.</blockquote>

Verification