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

[Janaxstrus]

And to be fair, I have fewer problems with mundane healing when it involves a skill, alchemical potions, healing kits etc and only heals SOME damage.

If the warlord had a heal skill that allowed to heal some amount of HPs via poultices, combat medicine, alchemical stuff, etc, I'd be ok with that.

I have a problem with a guy being peptalked from about to drop to full hit points.
Partial healing, sure, I'm willing to buy into that.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Well you are and you aren't and that's what I'm trying to say.

The idea of someone shouting wounds closed (without magic) is unbelievable no question.

I don't have any issue with you coming to that conclusion. The problem is saying that 4e forces this on you and causes an unrealistic/unbelievable situation.

I dont believe I ever said this. I just find its conclusion difficult to swallow. I understand that others are fine with the 4E explanation of HP and non magic healing.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I have been playing since 2nd edition, and I must say I never really knew about the HP as things other then damage definition. I mean in game, we almost always assume its damage to body and sometimes fatigue. My players have always just thought of that as an assumption. I recognize that this definition has problems, but I see things like healing surges and warlord type healing as adding to the problem.

I think the issue always comes down to those folks who are absolutely fine with 4Es methodology questioning the non-4E folks why some incongruities they are okay with, while other ones are dealbreakers. Despite the fact there's no actual point to it, since the non-4Eers are quite fine with their own opinions on the matter.

For instance, Bedrockgames has always stated quite succinctly that the way of treating HP in 3E and earlier he is fine with (even with the knowledge that much of it is still 'illogical' or 'unrealistic'), but those extra steps to 4E he just doesn't like and won't ever like. Contrast this with Hussar... who also states quite succinctly that he doesn't understand why a person is willing to give some 'unrealistic' rules a pass, while others not. To him... it seems like it should be an all or nothing proposition-- if you're okay with some unrealisim, then why not accept all unrealism?

And this is something that will never get solved... because it's just a feeling more than anything else. There's no hard and fast demarcation line that Bedrockgames can point to and say "I need X many days to pass before I'm satisfied with 'natural healing' of wounds". He just knows that the 6 hours of 4E Extended Rest doesn't do it, whereas the week or so of 3E natural recovery time does. So there's no point in the 4Eers shouting out "What about 3 days?!? What about 2 weeks?!? What about 3 months?!?" Because they don't matter.

All we can do is hope that D&DN has rules in the first books that cover both ends of the spectrum (as well as one or two in the middle) so that each DM can tailor for themselves the ideal rules for their style of game.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Well, I don't think either of us really have any data on how popular it was or was not, so there's not much we can say there... I mean it could be that it was a popular view of HPs but they didn't realize how popular modeling them as physical wounds was as well?

Since this was a chief complaint against 4E, i dont think it is unreasonable to suggest they presented an unpopular interpretation of HP and healing.

So yeah I agree with your last part- they created a healing system that kind of left those that want HPs to model some form of physical wounds out. It doesn't create an unrealistic view of physical wound healing, it just doesn't account for them at all.


So they need to find some kind of way to model them so they can be interpreted in whatever way you want without sacrificing one or the other.

IE if they remove the idea of things like warlords and non magical healing from the ganme some people will be very upset. (Including me.)

If they don't also include some way for people who want them to be a way to model physical Hps then those people will continue to be upset.

i dont want them to absorb my set of prefernces into HS, warlords etc....i want to go back to normal HP. They can ad on optional healing surge mechanics and warlords for 4e fans, but these are things i dont want in the core system. The old method worked just fine for most of us. I am not interested in being offered up another justification for 4e healing by the designers (not do i want them to make healing even more complex to accomodate wounds versus fatigue).

 

[Kannik]

People often say that hit points aren't meant to represent real injury to the character. But then, what are they supposed to represent? Falling back on things like endurance and morale are really poor excuses, because hit points simulate those things even more poorly than they simulate injuries.

In times like these, I think it is worth asking the people who wrote AD&D, and read the source document:

Each character has a varying number of hit points, just as monsters do. These hit points represent how much damage (actual or potential) the character can withstand before being killed. A certain amount of these hit points represent the actual physical punishment which can be sustained. The remainder, a significant portion of hit points at higher levels, stands for skill, luck, and/or magical factors. A typical man-at-arms can take about 5 hit points of damage before being killed. let us suppose that a 10th level fighter has 55 hit points, plus a bonus of 30 hit points for his constitution, for a total of 85 hit points. This is the equivalent of about 18 hit dice for creatures, about what it would take to kill four huge warhorses. It is ridiculous to assume that even a fantastic fighter can take that much punishment. The same holds true to a lesser extent for clerics, thieves, and the other classes. Thus, the majority of hit points are symbolic of combat skill, luck (bestowed by supernatural powers), and magical forces.

I'm afraid you'll have no chance to discuss how poor of an excuse HP is, as both authors have now passed on to the planes beyond. However, this poor excuse has been the foundation of HP and the game since 1977, or over 30 years. And as such it has so much room to be used properly, without the unbelievableness of someone taking fourteen axe hits and whistling merrily along as they climb a 50' cliff.

It doesn't seem that different to me. If HP was only mental or only luck or only whatever, a week of bedrest wouldn't be required in 1e, 2e, 3e etc to fully heal. The barbarian could just get screamed at by the Bard until he was healed.

And herein gets to the heart of the matter: 1e, 2e and 3e HP recovery was redonkulously slow by mundane means, and only accelerated by divine magic or potion means. Thus, the recovery mechanic was unbelievable and incongruous with what HP were defined as. THIS, more than anything, is where the confusion has arisen over these 30+ years about what HP are and how HP work.

It's an amusing thing to note where we hang our "this is less believable" hat (fourteen axe hits vs having our stamina refreshed). Familiarity and first impressions have lasting impressions.

Dear WOTC 5E game designers,
Please put an entire page explaining the core definition of Hit Points in each of the core handbook.

It may not have been a full page, but as evidenced by the quote from the 1e AD&D PHB above, it was in there. Maybe a full page will ensure everyone is on the same page (no pun intended). Quote the 1e PHB as well on that page.

----

Ob: the title of this tread, YES, I agree. Believability is likely a better word than "realism." There's even a quote about that in the magical 1e PHB. Call HP regaining "recovery" rather than healing may help...

And maybe reprint this paragraph as well:

A few brief words are necessary to insure that the reader has actually obtained a game form which he or she desires. Of the two approaches to hobby games today, one is best defined as the realism-simulation school and the other as the game school. AD&D is assuredly an adherent of the latter school. It does not stress any realism (in the author's opinion an absurd effort at best considering the topic!). It does little to attempt to simulate anything either. ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS is first and foremost a game for the fun and enjoyment of those who seek to use imagination and creativity.

peace,

Kannik

 

[Ratskinner]

Personally, I don't find any more believability problems with healing and injury rules in 4e than I did in any other edition. I find problems all over the place in every edition. It goes hand in hand with D&D Combat's (un)abstract nature...Everything is abstract...until its not.

• Hit Points can represent fatigue, physical trauma, sometimes even psychological damage, etc. Which implies...
• Getting "Hit" doesn't actually mean steel meeting flesh. Except...
• Sometimes attacks carry poison or some other "non-damage" effect, which is triggered by you getting "Hit". That doesn't make sense unless you actually got skewered by the giant scorpion's tail (or whatever). But that's okay because...
• The rogue in your party just evaded a huge fireball without moving at all. Not that you can tell the difference between her and the Barbarian that failed his save because...
• You really don't suffer any form of hindrance or penalty for sustaining almost any kind of injury, until....
• You are almost dead from that last one. Which makes you wonder how you hopped back up and into the fight after the cleric cast Cure Light wounds on you. Was it just a particularly small sucking chest wound?

So really, the problem with hit points is their quantum-mechanical nature. That is, any given hit point of damage exists as an strange superposition of fatigue, morale, lost luck(?), and injury....until you recover that hit point. They're like Schrodinger's Cat. This is a problem that exists in every single edition of D&D. Non-magical healing in 4e only adds another way to collapse the superposition into morale as the Warlord tells you to "Keep on fighting, soldier!"



Personally, I would love to ditch the hp system entirely. Its been a minor irritant to me for almost 30 years. Unfortunately, I haven't found another replacement system that meets my criteria for simple and fast and yet makes sense with some kind of save system and still feels relatively like D&D. I have tried several. So far, I haven't found a cure that's better than the disease. Its the worst system out there, except for all the others.

 

[Minigiant]

Why can we just have warlords provide temporary hit points and have that function as morale based defense.

Hobgoblins show up.

Warlord (or Bard) says "It's time to kick some butt!"

The warlord's (or bard's) allies get 20 temporary hit points because they are all hyped up and in butt-whooping mode.

Repeat until the warlord runs out of cool things to say.

 

[Cadfan]

I think the issue always comes down to those folks who are absolutely fine with 4Es methodology questioning the non-4E folks why some incongruities they are okay with, while other ones are dealbreakers. Despite the fact there's no actual point to it, since the non-4Eers are quite fine with their own opinions on the matter.

For instance, Bedrockgames has always stated quite succinctly that the way of treating HP in 3E and earlier he is fine with (even with the knowledge that much of it is still 'illogical' or 'unrealistic'), but those extra steps to 4E he just doesn't like and won't ever like. Contrast this with Hussar... who also states quite succinctly that he doesn't understand why a person is willing to give some 'unrealistic' rules a pass, while others not. To him... it seems like it should be an all or nothing proposition-- if you're okay with some unrealisim, then why not accept all unrealism?

And this is something that will never get solved... because it's just a feeling more than anything else. There's no hard and fast demarcation line that Bedrockgames can point to and say "I need X many days to pass before I'm satisfied with 'natural healing' of wounds". He just knows that the 6 hours of 4E Extended Rest doesn't do it, whereas the week or so of 3E natural recovery time does. So there's no point in the 4Eers shouting out "What about 3 days?!? What about 2 weeks?!? What about 3 months?!?" Because they don't matter.

All we can do is hope that D&DN has rules in the first books that cover both ends of the spectrum (as well as one or two in the middle) so that each DM can tailor for themselves the ideal rules for their style of game.

That's kind of the thing, though.

What usually happens is this:

Joe: Healing system X is a problem.
Bob: Why?
Joe: Because its unrealistic.
Bob: What should we do instead?
Joe: Use healing system Y.
Bob: Healing system Y is also unrealistic.
Joe: I am ok with that.
Bob: So why is healing system X a problem?
Joe: Because its unrealistic.
Bob: Lack of realism does not explain your distinction between X and Y.
Joe: X is unrealistic. We should use Y. What is hard to understand?
Bob: Your continued use of the fallacy of the null comparison.

Its the same fight you get into with loads of other things, like dragonborn versus orc pcs, or spellcasting paladin wreathed in holy fire versus wuxia ronin wreathed in ki energies. Its ok to like one and not the other. But don't tell me that its because you don't like monster PCs, or because you don't like magical warriors. That just tells me that you don't really KNOW why you like one and not the other.

 

[Bedrockgames]

With all due respect Cadfan, that is straw man. People explain why they find pre 4E healing and HP more realistic than 4e heaing all the time. Your conversation above is not an accurate transcrpt of their explanation.

 

[Janaxstrus]

That's kind of the thing, though.

What usually happens is this:

Joe: Healing system X is a problem.
Bob: Why?
Joe: Because its unrealistic.
Bob: What should we do instead?
Joe: Use healing system Y.
Bob: Healing system Y is also unrealistic.
Joe: I am ok with that.
Bob: So why is healing system X a problem?
Joe: Because its unrealistic.
Bob: Lack of realism does not explain your distinction between X and Y.
Joe: X is unrealistic. We should use Y. What is hard to understand?
Bob: Your continued use of the fallacy of the null comparison.

Its the same fight you get into with loads of other things, like dragonborn versus orc pcs, or spellcasting paladin wreathed in holy fire versus wuxia ronin wreathed in ki energies. Its ok to like one and not the other. But don't tell me that its because you don't like monster PCs, or because you don't like magical warriors. That just tells me that you don't really KNOW why you like one and not the other.

I like 1e,2e,3e version because it's unrealistic with 34 years of tradition. Regardless of how HPs were envisioned, the fact that it took weeks to get them back made them more like physical damage.
Being able to be magically healed makes MORE sense to me, than the 4e version. It's not perfect, but I find it MORE believable to be healed via magic which restores luck/physical wounds/fatigue than the 4e version where a good speech restores your luck/physical damage/fatigue.

Neither method is perfect, one is just more believable, to me, personally.