http://www.frontiernet.net/~jamesstarlight...tification.html

This ought to be interesting...
Personally, for the most part I think this guy is full of shit and simply trying to justify a broken system.

I was ok with his "essay" untill this point:

For why D&D-like HPs suck, see here.

i find it irksome that the many of the people who say hit points suck because they're unrealistic are the same people who say we should just gloss over realism because the game has magic and dragons in it. "in Shadowrun," the argument goes, "you've got people who can fly and make things burst into flame just by looking at them. who cares if the way dikote is handled is unrealistic--it's fantasy! oh, hit points? no, those suck, nothing works like that in real life."

(austere, it should be noted, is not one of those people.)

Yes, it should.

It just comes back to realism within the system. Yes, the shadowrun world is fictional, but it does make logical sense. It is (largely) consistent within its own rules. The hit point system, IMO, really has some flaws, and at higher levels they seriously threaten the realism based on the world the game setup. Thats why some people argue that some other games are unrealistic, because the game needs to put forth a logical backing for why they do it which may be based on a premise that is currently outside of reality (magic), and hitpoints is something that is rarely well justified.

i have no problem with the idea that hp are not realistic. i'll even allow that SR's system is more realistic (mainly because we already hashed that issue out in the thread austere linked to). i do, however, have a problem with people who rag on hp for being unrealistic, but then turn around and say we should ignore reality issues in SR simply because SR has fantasy elements. the SR system very often doesn't make sense, and it's highly inconsistent within its own rules--smartlinks and vision mag, cyberlimbs sucking, essence cost of bone lacing, essence comparison between datajacks and routers, essence period paragraph page. we argue about these things all the time, and most people agree that they are what they are because of game balance. yet, when it comes to a quick simplification like hit points? oh, whoah, that's just unrealistic.

The interesting thing here, and the reason that I posted this is that I am used to hearing that side of the table that you are presenting MFB.

My personal take on Hit Points:

They're fine. Really they are. Think about it.
Final Fantasy uses them exclusively and no one really cares.

The problem isn't the Hit Points really at all. It's the systems balance of intergration of the Hit Points.
AD&D, for example, gets ragged on heavily for Hit Points, but it's not the Hit Points that are faulty. It's how they link into the system that's faulty. Damage isn't correctly distributed amonst the system to balance out the Hit Point scale. As well, Constitution existing along side of Hit Points is a bit udnerbalanced to me, as the Hit Points rise to show the characters growth in strength and endurance of pain. And yet, there is constitution.

I'm not arguing whether AD&D is good or not. That's an old and un-interesting babbling to me...like "Kurt Cobain was murdered" conversations.

In all reality, Shadowrun does have Hit Points.
You have boxes that, when full, determine your characters tenative death.
It just so happens that the Hit Points are uniformed accrossed the board and the Stat of BODY is what changes accross the board, representing the character tollerance of pain.

If you removed Constitution from AD&D and re-adjusted the Damage rates, the Hit Point system would be perfectly balanced.
But to me...If I, as a player, have to change a part of the core rules for the system to function sensibly, then it logs in my book as a sloppy system where the mechanics were not well networked.

I realize that every system has it's faults, and that players will always change things in the mechanics, yet I tend to look at how low into the core of the mechanics is the certain aspect that's "wrong".

Again, in AD&D's case, it's pretty much right at the core. Attributes(core level 1) + Damage (core level 3)


In the end, it's all about paying attention in the designing stages to where and what the mechanics are linking to and are they running on the same system?

This article has a fatal flaw, one that is mentioned in the article: Cure Light Wounds.

If that spell can heal the entirety of the actual damage done to a person, all the actual physical harm, it won't be "light". Therefore, characters cannot have just their starting hit die in "actual" HP.

~J

Hit points make for a decent enough mechanic, but in D&D they are very poorly described. The similar system used by d20 Star Wards breaking them into vitality points (lost due to fatigue of avoiding damage) and wound points (actual damage) is much more logical. The other problem I have with D&D hit points is that it is a very strong component of the very steep power curve of D&D. A first level character can typically be killed outright by a single blow from an orc. At higher levels, those orcs are only threats in groups of hundreds. By using only 10 "hit points" across the board, ShadowRun creates a much flatter power curve.

The descriptions of VPs and WPs aren't that much better. This was among the things discussed in the thread linked above. The way especially VPs are described is one of the reason why such a system does a great job at remaking Eraser but cannot recreate any decent war-movie.

Plus it doesn't work out too well that VPs are still determined just like in D&D, ie. by using Constitution and Feats that make it sound like it's still mostly about getting hit and sucking it up. Much of the description also points in this direction.

incidentally, i think the reasoning the author uses in the article is silly, and wouldn't use it myself.

I agree with AE, HP's make a fine cinematic game, gritty die in one shot scenes need something like SR's "HP's:.

The way Star Wars does it is fine with me, it feels more Star Warssy, that my Jedi can get knocked around a little and still be competitive.

Why argue over hit points, when Alignments are something more to fight over. Kidding alignments are fine for D&D.

Alignments are perfectly fine as long as you never ever ever enforce the penalties for changing alignment unless the change is simply brought about by bad roleplaying.

~J

there are no general penalties for changing alignment in 3e. certain classes--barbarians, paladins, monks, druids, etc.--lose class abilities if they change alignment.

I've always thought that if you have alignment in a game that it should only affect chrisma. Not lowering or raising, but rather look at it this way.
For each alignment is a different charisma type.
Your charisma is a gauge of how much charisma you have of your particalular alignment.

So, becoming a bastard and having a high charisma makes you real good at being a bastard.

He's basicly admitted that rather than considering whether rules are good, he just comes up with post-hoc justifications for bad ones.

*nods*
and proceeds to say that it's wrong to justify rules.