How many hit points do you have?

[Dungeonman]

Yes, this is also an interesting and distinct topic. At some point it would be great if someone started a thread on assessing these types of things in other characters. In this case, by and large, the player and the character are in the same boat, because they will only glean knowledge from the DM and cannot see the underlying mechanics.

Can PCs know when a monster is bloodied? Consistently or is it a knowledge or perception or nature check? What does it even mean to know a monster is bloodied anyhow? That's got to be meta for sure, because halfway to death doesn't mean anything in-character. Even bloodied in the literal sense doesn't mean much in-character. If a PC is not being roleplayed as if self-aware of their hit point status, they do know that certain conditions will kick in if/when they are bloodied and time their own actions accordingly? If a PC is self aware of its hit points, it seems it would open a Pandora's Box to observing in-character all the other effects of mechanics that are tied to hit points.

 

[Aenghus]

For players to make plausible decisions for their PC, they need to know some idea of their health, either in or out of character, and have permission to chose actions based on that knowledge.

I sincerely doubt many people advocate that PCs know their actual hit point total in-character, rather that they have some idea of their health and can discover the relative toughness of their foes with experience - sufficient knowledge that they can make tactical and strategic decisions without a blindfold.

This knowledge and approval to act on it can be in-character, out-of-character or some combination thereof.

Hit points are an abstract concept, and people have come up with lots of different competing ways to rationalise them, and describe their loss and recovery. These competing ways are very subjective and the various interpretations can result in different outcomes, and support competing design goals.

 

[Manbearcat]

But in 4e, I regard hit points as roughly a victory/momentum marker. The lower the character's hit points, the more the momentum of battle is turning against him/her. Hence a rousing word from a battle captain, or a word of blessing from a cleric, can re-invigorate the character and restore momentum, turning the tide. I assume that the PC's emotional and cognitive state corresponds to that of the player - for instance, if the player knows that his/her PC is low on hit points but is relaxed because s/he can see that his/her PC is in no danger because the other PCs have the situation under control, then I take it for granted that that player's PC is feelingthe same thing: s/he is in no real position to contribute to the fight, but is content to stand by while his/her allies clean things up.

Conversely, when a PC is bloodied and is confronted by multiple enemies any one of whom could render him/her unconscious with a hit and a lucky damage roll, I assume the PC's state of mind corresponds to that of the player: anxiety, a degree of desperation, a readiness to give it all and do whatever it takes to survive (mechanically, that correlates to daily powers, and at the metagame level to scouring the sheet for possible life-saving combos, etc), looking around to see if fellow PCs can provide any aid or reassurance, etc.

Hence my comment, either upthread or on another of these healing threads, that 4e healing works the same way in the metagame as in the fiction: it provides comfort and reassurance both to the PC and to the player.

Upthread I said that HP serve primarily as metagame markers for my players and myself. I just wanted to quote pemerton's post here (and bold the top sentence) as this comports precisely with the conveyance of the fictional positioning as HPs ablate and restore in my home 4e game. They are metagame markers for resource deployment/system interaction and fictional positioning markers with respect to momentum, escalation, rallying, desperation, and exaltation. In the same way that responsible 4e GMs and players pay heed to this inherent dramatic ebb and flow (rising action, climax, denoument) that the HP system (and knock-on effects/system components) connotes (and narrate complications, escalation, etc accordingly), so too do responsible 4e GMs and players pay heed to the markers of stakes, complexity, advantages, # successes accrued, and # failures accrued (the last two being the interposing adversity's "HP pool" and the player's collective "HP pool" respectively).

 

[Ahnehnois]

Cool thread. I registered just to give my two cents

Well, my count of "people recruited to ENWorld" is now up to 1.

that I think heroes -- if they were real-life personalities -- lack self-awareness when it comes to their superhuman abilities and mortality.

So essentially, your case is that bravery and stupidity are the same thing. That characters are heroes not because they are better than everyone else and they know it, but because they're oblivious risk-takers.

It's an interesting take, and not one without precedent. Many action heroes do seem to behave that way.

The player can certaintly try to roleplay a character as if they knew their hit points, but really, the character couldn't be self aware of anything.

I don't really see why they couldn't. Our own self-awareness is predicated in empirical observation. Something hurts us, and we learn about our vulnerabilities. We achieve a success, and we learn about our capabilities. Fantasy characters, despite living in an unrealistic world, could observe the outcomes going on around them and draw conclusions.

 

[Dungeonman]

That characters are heroes not because they are better than everyone else and they know it, but because they're oblivious risk-takers.

It's an interesting take, and not one without precedent. Many action heroes do seem to behave that way.

Yes, that's a great way to summarize it: I think many action heroes are oblivious risk-takers. In many cases, I think they are both: they know they're better than everyone else AND they're oblivious.

Heroes actually do what they do because it advances the plot in an exciting way that pleases the audience and makes money for the producers. Similarly, D&D heroes do what they do to please the gamers. The in-character motives are then subject to intepretation as Aenghus says. I think that attempts at plausible explanations for action hero risk-taking are merely to help suspend disbelief just enough. But "knowing" your hit points throughout a campaign is more than the usual suspension of disbelief. It requires behaving with self-awareness, and I don't think most heroes (paricularily heroes in dumb action settings) have that.

I'd say that, esp when it comes to hit points, a brave kid in an action movie and Average Joe protaganists are oblivious idiots. The ex-CIA op in a gritty 'realistic' movie who takes on 4 opponents at once, counts his lucky stars, recovers in the hospital for the next 48 hrs with his family, and leaves the rest to his CIA colleagues knows he's better than everyone else. The ex-CIA hero who takes on dozens of armed opponents and various obstacles over 48 hours and succeeds and kisses the dame -- such a hero knows he's better than everyone else but he's still rather oblivious. He can't be self-aware, because if we was, he'd probably act differently or at least question the rationality of his superhuman endurance and the improbability of these events.

I don't really see why they couldn't. Our own self-awareness is predicated in empirical observation. Something hurts us, and we learn about our vulnerabilities. We achieve a success, and we learn about our capabilities. Fantasy characters, despite living in an unrealistic world, could observe the outcomes going on around them and draw conclusions.

But even in an unrealistic fantasy world, the characters need some understanding of cause-and-effect in order to draw those conclusions. Let's say a cleric believes he's surrounded by a protective divine forcefield. He believes this aura is damaged by attacks and regenerates with rest, and once that forcefield is gone, the cleric feels vulnerable. Such a cleric can be roleplayed (more or less) consistently with player's out-of-character knowledge. (Furthermore, theoretically, if the cleric was in anti-magic shield and believed this aura was gone, the players knows he still has 60 hit points, but the cleric in-character would fear that he's vulnerable to a single strike, and wouldn't rush to the front of the battleline as boldly as if he knew he had the full divine protection -- or 60 hit points -- left.)

In most cases, I think, fantasy characters don't have access to in-game cause-and-effect undertstanding that would lead to naturalistic behavior consistent with player knowledge of the character's mortality, just like the typical action hero that engages in oblivious risk taking to please the movie audience. D&Disms and fun requirements and obligations to the gaming group can often require us to roleplay characters in ways that aren't quite rational, which is why I think they're oblivious, and if they're not self-aware, they can't "know" their hit points -- at least not to an extent that is meaningful to me anyway.

 

[Celebrim]

Can PCs know when a monster is bloodied? Consistently or is it a knowledge or perception or nature check? What does it even mean to know a monster is bloodied anyhow? That's got to be meta for sure, because halfway to death doesn't mean anything in-character. Even bloodied in the literal sense doesn't mean much in-character. If a PC is not being roleplayed as if self-aware of their hit point status, they do know that certain conditions will kick in if/when they are bloodied and time their own actions accordingly? If a PC is self aware of its hit points, it seems it would open a Pandora's Box to observing in-character all the other effects of mechanics that are tied to hit points.

With respect to rationalizing the rules of 4e and narrating them coherently, I'm sure that pemerton knows vastly more than idea and can offer a vastly more coherent description of 4e play than I could. I simply don't know enough about 4e to comment, save that I do know that it produces a theory of the game that is vastly different than the theory of the game from 1e through 3e. The 1e DMG still offers the definitive description of what hit points represent as far as I'm concerned.

I'm ready to assume - in part because I think pemerton runs 4e better than its designers do - that if there is a coherent description of 4e hit points, that he can offer it. However, pemerton's descriptions of hit points are just not things I'm ready to accept for a wide variety of reasons. In the past he's compared them to fatigue. Here he goes further and suggests that hit points are markers of courage and morale. Perhaps this works in 4e. I can't say. But it doesn't work for me.

As I play the game, which is a heavily modified version of 3.0, characters - both PC's and NPC's - can indirectly observe their own hit points and attempt to assess the hit points of others. This is necessary in might opinion to be internally consistant, and in general doing so produces consistency in just about everything but the 'cure' spells. This consistency gap is one I'm aware of, and I can partially close it, but a full closure requires a rules rewrite and so far a set of rules that closes that consistency gap and is also mechanically balanced and interesting hasn't suggested itself to me.

 

[SteveC]

So I watch the show Arrow, which is a totally guilty pleasure thing for me (it's on the CW, so ... yeah it's kind of like that). Many of my friends who like to poke fun at me ask "how the heck can all those characters who are supposed to be smart and with it NOT KNOW who the Arrow is." If you think about it, it makes no sense on that show, or just about any other superhero with secret identity program.

So why don't people know who the Arrow or Batman or Superman or ... you name it are? Genre convention. That's it. Why does the villain monologue about what they're going to do and then leave the hero in a totally escapable death trap? Genre.

So why do heroes not think about their hit points, or other meta gaming concepts? Genre.

It doesn't have to be that way: I have played in games where the GM had no barrier between character and player knowledge, and they completely worked, they were just different.

For me, I very much prefer the mystery, and not immediately knowing who the Arrow is.

 

[billd91]

So why do heroes not think about their hit points, or other meta gaming concepts? Genre.

Moreover, why do heroes not think about hit points yet act like big damn heroes with confidence that a lowly mook is not going to kill them with a single attack? Genre. And if anyone thinks that a superior warrior turning deadly attacks into minor nicks and cuts isn't in-genre, they haven't read enough John Carter stories.

 

[Hussar]

Now this I totally agree with [MENTION=44640]bill[/MENTION]91 and [MENTION=9053]SteveC[/MENTION].

 

[Argyle King]

Moreover, why do heroes not think about hit points yet act like big damn heroes with confidence that a lowly mook is not going to kill them with a single attack? Genre. And if anyone thinks that a superior warrior turning deadly attacks into minor nicks and cuts isn't in-genre, they haven't read enough John Carter stories.

Heroes being able to handle multiple mooks is something I'm fine with.

PCs being virtually immune to entire armies isn't something I'm fine with.