[CONAN] Life's Blood and Condition

[Supplement Four]

Dare I mention changing hp in the negative side?

I think I mentioned that above.

If you read through the old 1st edition AD&D DMG, even Gary Gygax speaks of this--how a character is wouded at HP 0 to HP -3. Then, at -4 HP, he collapses.

It's an often forgotten passage in that amazing book.

 

[PrinceYyrkoon]

:roll:

 

[Supplement Four]

How much hit point damage is a fairly severe heart attack? Kidney faliure? Asphyxiation? Drowning? Parkinson's Disease?

That's not really fair as this fantasy game does not really try to model those types of injuries (though, you'll see stuff on diseases--there's a Combat Maneuver for choke....and maybe look at the swim drowning rules for Asphyxiation...)

You question would be more on target if you asked about all those little, miscellaneous injuries that hit points do represent.

When you get hit and take hit points off, the game is not trying to model that you just got struck with Parkinson's. It's trying to modle sweat in your eye, sore ribs, a slightly twisted ankel, bruise on your shield arm, that pain behind your knee cap...stuff like that.

 

[PrinceYyrkoon]

:roll:

 

[Supplement Four]

Ok, well, in a non-class-based or level-based rpg like RQ, let's try something:

You seem to be drifting into trying your own thing. I agree that the d20 system isn't perfect and that it can be tweaked to do other things. Stat loss is already in the game.

But this has nothing to do with whether hit points represent real wounds or not. That was the question we were discussing. I said that hit points are an abstract way to keep track of pesky miscellaneous wounds.

You said that hit points are not wounds at all.

Then I said that hit points are wounds because they time time to heal, just like a wound would.

Then, you started talking about heart attacks...

 

[PrinceYyrkoon]

:roll:

 

[Supplement Four]

Well, that's obviously not how I see the conversation, and I think it a slightly dishonest appeal to ridicule to describe the exchange in the terms you have.

Let's be clear. I wasn't ridiculing. I was just trying to steer the topic back to the point rather than go off on a lot of tangents to debate.

I'll probably end here because I don't think much can be resolved by you consistently gainsaying and diametrically opposing anything I offer in order to move the conversation along.

That's fine, but let me point out that it's you that is hot, not me. I've discussing this with you in good faith even though, from my perspective, you seem to be trying to cloud the issue and jump topics.