> I'm of the opposite view. I've found W&V (and similar systems) far better > in fullfilling a number of functions than Hit Points. In particular, it > makes Hack'n'Slash less viable of an option, since the chance of a Critical > ending a PC's life suddenly ensures that other options besides direct > confrontation are considered first and formost. In addition, in a Low Magic > campaign, it most definately eliminates the dependancy on magical healing. > While Hit Points are assumed to have the Vitality component contained within > them, the requirement to have that Vitality "healed" by a priestly-type is a > drastic limitation. To that end, W&V promotes more thoughtful role-play > (over kick-in-the-door play), better adventuring, and more variety for > campaign settings. > > It's usually a major crimp on versimilitude when your Low Magic setting is > full of healing potions. > > ~Ol' Ben
Agreed. Furthermore, the amount of "extra" bookkeeping is minute at best. Definitely nothing that someone couldn't get used to within a night's worth of playing. There have been quite a few games that have dabbled with the Wounds/Vitality (Wounds/Life, Stun/Wounds, Abrasions/Mortal, etc.) idea outside of d20, and were often lauded as ingenious, or taking the path less traveled. In fact, it is D&D's hit point system that has been panned for years as being too simplistic, too unbelievable, too rigid, too this, too that. The list goes on and on. I, for one, continue to use the old stand by, but have used the other version when playing SW without any difficulties whatsoever. Come to think of it, my players seem to prefer it. Tim Kidwell Still playin', still writin' _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
