> Justin Bacon wrote: > Actually this is a completely objective assessment.
Your "facts" are based on one of two things: 1. Your willingness/unwillingness to use the system. 2. Your inability to use the system. I've been using W&V ever since I got my hands on them, and I have enjoyed the following benefits: 1. No change in speed of play. 2. Increased verisimilitude. 3. Easier suspention of disbelief. My experience with the system is the only "facts" I know; Your "facts" are based on your experience with the system. As such, having achieved two different sets of "facts", then these aren't "facts" at all. As such, both views are subjective. Mine has been good. Yours have been objective. This, of course, assumes you've used the system, as nothing you've posted indicates that you have or haven't. > 1. Does the VP/WP system add complexity? Of course. The VP/WP requires more rules. This, by definition, is added complexity. The rules are simple and straightforward. They are no where nearly as convoluted as AoO, Feat stacking, Skill synnergy, or anything else. > 2. Does the VP/WP system add bookkeeping? Of course. The VP/WP add an extra pool of points which must be tracked. This, by definition, is added bookkeeping. The thing is, you indicate this is a bad thing. Is it? Not to me. That's why your opinion is just that: An opinion. > 3. Is this added complexity and bookkeeping necessary? No. We've seen systems achieve comparable (and even identical) results with less > bookkeeping and complexity. Okay, so you object to W&V because it uses different rules, but then you'll espouce the use of different rules. How... Interesting. > This isn't a matter of opinion. It's a matter of fact. > If you prefer the unnecessary bookkeeping and complexity to other options currently available on the market, that's your opinion. If you prefer overly simplistic systems that require nonsensical in-game justification and reduces verisimilitude, that's your opinion. > I never said it wasn't cut and dry. It is, however, a new rule which must be remembered and implemented. You have added a whole new category of rules to the game: Rules which determine whether physical damage is applied to WP or VP. I don't consider a rule based on common sense to be a bad rule. Also, despite your constant use of plurality, saying "Falling Damage goes to Wounds" is one rule. And it's a rather simple one to remember. > As opposed to taking a bunch of abstract damage, then taking some more abstract damage with a different label, and then falling down and bleeding to death? You ignore the fact that the concept of Wound Damage seperates "non-damage" from "physical damage", exhaustion and luck seperated from physical punishment. Yes, it remains abstract to a degree, but it makes far more sense. The difference between the two is easily spelled out and clearly understood. Hit Points, however, are abstract to the point of having been a burden on the system throughout its history, having to be "justified" in a number of different ways throughout the past 20+ years. > The mechanics which speed up healing are almost wholly tangential to the WP/VP system. Wrong; The mechanic does not "speed up" Healing at all because the recovery of Vitality isn't related to Healing at all. If you were familiar with the system you'd know that. > If you like unnecessary complexity and bookkeeping, then the WP/VP system is -idneed- superior to HP in "every way" (assuming that complexity and bookkeeping are the only "ways" in your book). I don't find the rules complex or the second pool of numbers to be a burden. I don't think it's the only way, but for achieving the results it achieves, it's simple, fast, and easily implemented. > I would strongly suggest that you attempt to read messages for *comprehension* before hitting the Reply button. You'll notice that I've strongly endorsed revisions to the HP system for modeling different genres and accomplishing different goals. I do comprehend what you've written. Let me sum it up: 1. Your opinions are fact. 2. Anyone that doesn't agree with your opinion is wrong. > I just don't like unnecessary bookkeeping and complexity. The WP/VP system is, by definition, an inelegant solution (and, in fact, doesn't solve most of the problems it supposedly sets out to solve). > > You, OTOH, appear to prefer unnecessary bookkeeping and complexity. More power to you. I prefer the results of the system. By the same token, I don't find them an unnecessary burden or overly complex. They do what I've always wished Hit Points did do, and does it in a manner that does not slow down play in any regard while adding verisimilitude, allowing for smoother play by allowing the story of the game to progress without requiring justification for inconsistancies. If you've failed to obtain proper results from the system, don't blame it on the system. Especially true if others *have* had success with it. Otherwise there wouldn't be such a want for them (or similar) within the industry. If you think you can do better than W&V, however, than by all means give it a go. ~Ol' Ben _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
