Realism vs. Believability and the Design of HPs, Powers and Other Things

Bedrockgames · Apr 11, 2012

Tallifer said:
Yes I can look you straight in the face and tell you that magic is never believable. That is why many people (my father for one) refuse to watch fantasy movies and mock elves and wizards, but will happily watch various modern action heroes enact impossible feats. There is a whole movie based on the idea that if the hero stops running and moving he will die. In those movies, the heroes injuries usually manifest as flesh wounds and smears of blood only. There are also standard tropes wherein the hero is jolted back into action by encouragement, by memory of a loved one, by anger. I find action movies almost entirely unbelievable as well, but for some reason many people can accept them before they will ever enjoy the Lord of the Rings.

This i find very unconvincing. Some people may have difficulty swallowing fantasy, but people who watch or read it still have basic expectationa of internal consistency and physics. If frodo breaks his shin bone but the next minute it is fixed, i expect a reason to be offered (or i expect some kind of time to elapse prior to him doing so). In action movies the concession is usually that the character is martialling through the injury, but even then the assumptions sems to be they are operating atvless than optimal performance (usually indicated through gasping, occassional limp, etc).

dkyle · Apr 11, 2012

Bedrockgames said:
If frodo breaks his shin bone but the next minute it is fixed, i expect a reason to be offered (or i expect some kind of time to elapse prior to him doing so).

While that makes sense, it's not really relevant, as there is no way to break a shin bone, or any bone, short of pure DM fiat, in any edition of DnD.

In action movies the concession is usually that the character is martialling through the injury, but even then the assumptions sems to be they are operating atvless than optimal performance (usually indicated through gasping, occassional limp, etc).

Which points to injuries in DnD being even more superficial than the ones in those movies, since we don't operate at less than optimal performance even at 1 HP out of 100.

Bedrockgames · Apr 11, 2012

dkyle said:
While that makes sense, it's not really relevant, as there is no way to break a shin bone, or any bone, short of pure DM fiat, in any edition of DnD.

It is relevant because it shows that even these genres pay some lip service to believability. Someone was arguing otherwise.

Which points to injuries in DnD being even more superficial than the ones in those movies, since we don't operate at less than optimal performance even at 1 HP out of 100.

you cant have it both ways though. You cant respond to a criticism of HS saying that the movies D&D is modeled after ignore physical damage as well, then turn around when peope show that these movies do not ignore said damage and argue that D&D is meant to be more superficial anyways so it doesn't matter. Why bring up the movies in the first place if they have no bearing on your position?

Now you are right that D&D doesn't model the effect of wounds well (aside from just having lower HP) but it does share the consistency of physicial damage you see in a lot of these movies. Somone doesn't get cut across the chest and then have no cut inthe next scene (and if that does happen people point and laugh because it is a consistency error---usually a bad edit). If someone cuts me with a sword I take ten points of damage, i find it hard to believe that that damage can be healed becauee I dug deep or my warlord shouted in my ear. If it was temporary HP at least the digging deep might make sense ( because digging deep doesn't restore you it just allows you to temporarily ignore the effects of being hurt).

dkyle · Apr 11, 2012

Bedrockgames said:
It is relevant because it shows that even these genres pay some lip service to believability. Someone was arguing otherwise.

And DnD pays similar "lip service" by not having concrete serious injuries as a result of HP loss in the first place.

you cant have it both ways though. You cant respond to a criticism of HS saying that the movies D&D is modeled after ignore physical damage as well, then turn around when peope show that these movies do not ignore said damage and argue that D&D is meant to be more superficial anyways so it doesn't matter. Why bring up the movies in the first place if they have no bearing on your position?

The argument is that those movies portray characters overcoming being beat down and, and even out of the fight, by sheer force of will. Not that those movies show people shaking of broken limbs, sucking chest wounds, or other injuries that cannot simply be shaken off. Those injuries are besides the point, because they are not inflicted according to the rules (except possibly as flavor when a creature actually dies).

I think the poster you responded to was a little unclear; obviously, action movies don't show wounds literally going away from inspiration. But they do often show the effects of those wounds going away. And that's ultimately what matters; how a wound affects a character, not whether they have superficial scrapes and bruises appearing on their body. A Cleric removes the wounds, a Warlord just makes you not care you have them. And that's assuming there are any wounds actually being inflicted by HP loss to begin with.

If someone cuts me with a sword I take ten points of damage, i find it hard to believe that that damage can be healed becauee I dug deep or my warlord shouted in my ear.

The only reason it's hard to believe is because you decided to interpret those ten points of damage as a wound from a sword slice, and the warlord's inspiration as actually removing that wound. The rules make no such statement. 10 points of HP loss do not necessarily mean any physical damage (and never have in any edition), and 10 points of HP gain do not necessarily mean any repair of physical damage (this is a consistency with HP loss that is largely new to 4E). If you choose to interpret the rules in a way that produces a nonsensical story, that's hardly the rules' fault.

Bedrockgames · Apr 11, 2012

dkyle said:
loss to begin with.

The only reason it's hard to believe is because you decided to interpret those ten points of damage as a wound from a sword slice, and the warlord's inspiration as actually removing that wound. The rules make no such statement. 10 points of HP loss do not necessarily mean any physical damage (and never have in any edition), and 10 points of HP gain do not necessarily mean any repair of physical damage (this is a consistency with HP loss that is largely new to 4E). If you choose to interpret the rules in a way that produces a nonsensical story, that's hardly the rules' fault.

but the rules dont support viewing it as purely non physical either. Hp has always been a combo of real damagr and other things (and traditional healing rules supported and reinforced this interpretation). It isn't like this is some bizarre personal explanation of HP i have come up with on my own. It is very widespread and is one of the major reasons lots of people dont like healing surges. I think you are dismissing how common it is for people to treat 10 points of damage as actual physical harm to the character that shouldn't just be blown off by a pep talk.

nightwalker450 · Apr 11, 2012

I'm fine with sword slashes being wounds.. But the warlord is my ally telling me to ignore the wounds and push on. The cleric likewise, is using the blessings of his deity to keep us moving. Once the combat is over though, we bandage up the wounds and move on. After combat is fluff, not actual healing.

I can't think of many fictions where healing in combat is done, any serious wounds did put the character out for the rest of the battle and the following few days. But from a gaming perspective, those are plot points, not to be handled by rules. (Damn, Bill's Wife called, she's having the baby now... so his character takes a severe wound, that will take the next few sessions to recover from... Good luck Bill, now it's Mark's turn in the initiative.) There are a helluva lot more instances of heroes overcoming their wounds, to carry on, through their own inner strength, or the faith and support of their allies.

I have dealt severe wounds to characters who were going on vacation... but no my gaming group has never had a wife go into labor during a gaming session.

dkyle · Apr 11, 2012

Bedrockgames said:
but the rules dont support viewing it as purely non physical either.

Indeed. And I'm not. HP loss can represent physical wounds, in addition to other intangibles. But the physical component is clearly not broken bones, or serious bleeding-out injuries. When there is damage, it's clearly not something that is serious enough to hinder the character. And the point with the action movies was that such injuries are shaken off all the time in them.

Hp has always been a combo of real damagr and other things (and traditional healing rules supported and reinforced this interpretation).

Except that traditional healing rules only reflected the "real damage" part of HP, and ignored the "other things". For some reason, when it came time to do healing, HP weren't treated as the abstract things they clearly are when damage is being dealt.

It isn't like this is some bizarre personal explanation of HP i have come up with on my own. It is very widespread and is one of the major reasons lots of people dont like healing surges. I think you are dismissing how common it is for people to treat 10 points of damage as actual physical harm to the character that shouldn't just be blown off by a pep talk.

I understand that lots of people like to interpret it that way. But it's effectively a popular houserule, since it goes directly against how the game has described HP, from the start. Should there be an option for strict HP-as-wounds? Sure. Personally, I'd want a bona-fide wounds system for that, since I find strict HP-as-wounds completely nonsensical, but I know not everyone else does.

But the baseline should be core DnD, not houserules. And that means abstract HP. And once you have abstract HP, non-magical healing is completely logical.

Derren · Apr 11, 2012

dkyle said:
Indeed. And I'm not. HP loss can represent physical wounds, in addition to other intangibles. But the physical component is clearly not broken bones, or serious bleeding-out injuries. When there is damage, it's clearly not something that is serious enough to hinder the character. And the point with the action movies was that such injuries are shaken off all the time in them.

No you are just bleeding to death and will die in seconds.
Unless someone shouts at you.

Or do your PCs tend to weep themselves to death because of morale loss?

Bedrockgames · Apr 11, 2012

Dkyle: respectfully disagree. Not only was the "popoular houserule" supported by the healing rules, it was supported by the language and fluff of the rest pf the game. No one was looking for a wound system. The simple hp of d&d in the first three editions supply a certain level of believability but allow for heroic levels of play. I am also with others that dont see the 4e approach as any more consistent. While true the rules described hp as a combo of physical and other things, the physical element was still in there.

dkyle · Apr 11, 2012

Derren said:
No you are just bleeding to death and will die in seconds.
Unless someone shouts at you.

If shouting at you gets you on your feet, then you weren't bleeding out and about to die in seconds. Negative HP in 4E means you are unconscious, and if you fail enough death saving throws, you will die. Being unconscious does not mean you cannot be jarred awake by sound. And death saving throws do not necessarily represent bleeding.

Even in 3.X, the only way to be "bleeding to death and will die in seconds" was to be at exactly -10. In old editions, there was literally no such thing as "bleeding to death". You were either fine (1 HP or more), or dead (0 HP).

Or do your PCs tend to weep themselves to death because of moral loss?

What mechanical outcome are you referring to, where that is the best story explanation for what is going on?

Just because some HP loss can be represented as Morale loss, doesn't mean that the HP loss that represents the killing blow is Morale loss. If a hit kills something, then it is entirely logical to describe that as a physical hit dealing mortal damage.