Thursday, March 22, 2012

What he said

2 comments:

  1. I actually just finished writing a post about 4e healing.

    http://monstroustelevision.blogspot.com/2012/03/hitpoints-in-4e-inevitable-conclusion.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. (Reposted from my reply on your blog)

      There's no question that you can't have a hit point conversation until you agree on what hit points represent. Even the stiffest grognard out there would agree with EGG's statement that HP are an abstraction, which is why D&D doesn't have Runequest-style maimings and GURPS-level lethality. In those games, character skill and tactics, not HP abstractions, prevent lethal injury. But D&D has always favored the abstract approach in many areas, eschewing a simulationist model in favor of game flow, ease of play, and DM customization/fiat. This is why OD&D/1st Edition doesn't have detailed rules on perception, armor-as-damage reduction, skills, etc. As the game editions evolved, more and more of these simulationist concepts have been grafted to the game.

      My personal objection to healing surges is not one of grognard "purity" but rather one of taste and style. I play in a regular 4e game, and the gamist/simulationist style of play takes me out of immersion. Healing surges are but one of the most blatant examples of this, a clunky game mechanic injecting itself into my imaginary fantasy world. For me, D&D is best experienced as "theater of the mind," so less is more. Fewer rules, fewer battlemats ... more interaction.

      Here's hoping 5e allows for this "back to basics" approach.

      Delete