The Issue of Hit Point Inflation and Related Materia

[S'mon]

For D&D with its default activity of dungeonbashing entailing multiple fights per session, I like short fights. If a battle is long, I like it to be due to large numbers of combatants and a tactically complex situation, not a padded pinata situation. Metagame tactics that only concern rules manipulation don't interest me; the tactics I'm interesting are those that concern real-world stuff like ambush, terrain, flanking, morale, and combined arms tactics.

For instance, I had an encounter where elite hobgoblins with long spears (chief's bodyguards in converted B5 Horror on the Hill) were screened by a pack of weak hobgoblin and goblin rabble. This turned out to be absolutely lethal (in 3.5) as the PCs charged the rabble, killed 1 or 2 inconsequential foes, and were then pierced by the longspears; we ended up with 2 dead PCs, 1 incapacitated, and the last PC standing over the body of the last hobgoblin.

 

[Jack7]

Metagame tactics that only concern rules manipulation don't interest me; the tactics I'm interesting are those that concern real-world stuff like ambush, terrain, flanking, morale, and combined arms tactics.

I'm with you S'mon.
You might like the Tactical Repertoire.

 

[ExploderWizard]

For D&D with its default activity of dungeonbashing entailing multiple fights per session, I like short fights. If a battle is long, I like it to be due to large numbers of combatants and a tactically complex situation, not a padded pinata situation. Metagame tactics that only concern rules manipulation don't interest me; the tactics I'm interesting are those that concern real-world stuff like ambush, terrain, flanking, morale, and combined arms tactics.

My sentiments exactly.
If I feature a monster with unusually high hit points, I prefer that it be the exception rather than the rule.
Inflated pools of hit points for most things designed specifically to ensure that combatants stay engaged in combat for X number of rounds isn't my cup of tea. I like the variety and organic feel that a bit more swingy combat brings. Some fights might take a while and others might end in a round or two and thats ok. Every combat in the campaign can be meaningful no matter how long it takes to play out. Risk is accepted, resources may be consumed, and the consequences of success or failure will be felt.

I guess the more important question is the role of combat in the game. Is it one aspect of the game or the reason for playing?

 

[Jack7]

I guess the more important question is the role of combat in the game. Is it one aspect of the game or the reason for playing?

To me EW the game is about Role Play (after all there were precursors to D&D that were about wargaming, if D&D had been designed merely to be a wargame then improved versions of those other games should have been sufficient) not Combat Role Play.

Of course combat is an important aspect of Role Play because it allows one to overcome dangerous opponents and living obstacles (which are often far more interesting to overcome than inanimate obstacles), but it is not the reason for the game, it is an aspect of the game.

Therefore things like hit points and armor class and so forth are merely tools to address certain aspect-problems of the game (specifically combat in this case), not meant to wholly define the game itself.

I personally am less than enthused or inspired by the idea that everything in the game must be optimized towards the intention of "killing." I am very much in favor of characters possessing tactical skill and capability (to a high degree in some cases), but not a "tactical destiny."

Killing effectively is an important in-game combat skill, but once again it is a situational tool (and in cases of combat should be optimized for the task at hand, after all any tool should be fit for the task) but killing is not the point of the game, it is merely a capability. One capability among others. It's like saying the only job of a cop is to "shoot criminals." Yes, shooting criminals might very well be an important task, and in some cases, the most important task a cop can perform, but it is far from his only task, skill, job demand, or capability. Imagine how effective a cop would be in the real world, any world, if his only "Role-ability" were to shoot criminals. Most of the time he'd be completely useless, awaiting only those rare moments when he actually need shoot a criminal.

Turning every spell and every device and every intention and every adventure and every encounter into a killing contest merely devolves the game into a highly decorated tactical wargame. Just a wargame with Elves instead of archers and dwarves instead of grunts and Wizards instead of artillery men. Magic becomes nothing more than a sort of arcane ammunition depot, clerics merely advanced field medics, and endless fighting becomes the point of life, not as aspect of it. Combat becomes the role, the point of existence. War and combat become the eternal reasons. And a role play game is not a wargame (it can and should in my opinion often encapsulate and encompass things like tactical combat and wargaming, but it should not be limited by them), but instead it is by very definition role-play.

If the only role any character ever does play or ever seeks to play is that of a combatant then by definition you have a wargame, not a role-play game. Though in the case of D&D a tactical wargame, not a strategic one. Meaning even the fights have no real purpose other than "winning the fight and taking spoils."

I don't like the trend among later editions of the game, and I fully understand the rebellion against this trend and impulse, of devolving the game into a mere dressed-up excuse for endless fighting. And usually fighting for no real purpose other than to fight and kill and get stuff without anything else of real importance occurring at all.

If the point of the game is endless combat then it of course makes sense to have creatures with thousands of hit points, an armor class of 79, and who can reach level 57 and deal out 120 points of damage a piece per combat round. But then again all you really have in a game like that is a biological version of a Mech-Droid shooting Warlock bolts instead of plasma cannons. What you have done is taken a role play game and created a table-top Arcade Game out of it. There is no character destiny, no in-game point or purpose, no magic, no miracle, no objective other than the fight.

Implicit in a Role-Play game is the implication that players and characters have a Role to Fulfill, not just a Role to war-play.

 

[Galloglaich]

It's like saying the only job of a cop is to "shoot criminals." Yes, shooting criminals might very well be an important task, and in some cases, the most important task a cop can perform, but it is far from his only task, skill, job demand, or capability. Imagine how effective a cop would be in the real world, any world, if his only "Role-ability" were to shoot criminals. Most of the time he'd be completely useless, awaiting only those rare moments when he actually need shoot a criminal.
(snip)
If the point of the game is endless combat then it of course makes sense to have creatures with thousands of hit points, an armor class of 79, and who can reach level 57 and deal out 120 points of damage a piece per combat round. But then again all you really have in a game like that is a biological version of a Mech-Droid shooting Warlock bolts instead of plasma cannons. What you have done is taken a role play game and created a table-top Arcade Game out of it. There is no character destiny, no in-game point or purpose, no magic, no miracle, no objective other than the fight.

Implicit in a Role-Play game is the implication that players and characters have a Role to Fulfill, not just a Role to war-play.

Very, very well put.

I am surprised, and delighted, to find that there are other people around on these boards who percieve gaming the same way I do.

I wonder if we might have any interest around making a new OGL version of DnD, collectively through some kind of open Wiki. Kind of like pathfinder is doing, only instead of a "3.75" approach toward more high-magic, high combat, high-fantasy gaming, how about moving in the opposite direction, more gritty, more immersive, more role playing oriented, say a "3.01" version?

G.

 

[Harlekin]

To me EW the game is about Role Play (after all there were precursors to D&D that were about wargaming, if D&D had been designed merely to be a wargame then improved versions of those other games should have been sufficient) not Combat Role Play.

Of course combat is an important aspect of Role Play because it allows one to overcome dangerous opponents and living obstacles (which are often far more interesting to overcome than inanimate obstacles), but it is not the reason for the game, it is an aspect of the game.

Therefore things like hit points and armor class and so forth are merely tools to address certain aspect-problems of the game (specifically combat in this case), not meant to wholly define the game itself.

I personally am less than enthused or inspired by the idea that everything in the game must be optimized towards the intention of "killing." I am very much in favor of characters possessing tactical skill and capability (to a high degree in some cases), but not a "tactical destiny."

Killing effectively is an important in-game combat skill, but once again it is a situational tool (and in cases of combat should be optimized for the task at hand, after all any tool should be fit for the task) but killing is not the point of the game, it is merely a capability. One capability among others. It's like saying the only job of a cop is to "shoot criminals." Yes, shooting criminals might very well be an important task, and in some cases, the most important task a cop can perform, but it is far from his only task, skill, job demand, or capability. Imagine how effective a cop would be in the real world, any world, if his only "Role-ability" were to shoot criminals. Most of the time he'd be completely useless, awaiting only those rare moments when he actually need shoot a criminal.

Turning every spell and every device and every intention and every adventure and every encounter into a killing contest merely devolves the game into a highly decorated tactical wargame. Just a wargame with Elves instead of archers and dwarves instead of grunts and Wizards instead of artillery men. Magic becomes nothing more than a sort of arcane ammunition depot, clerics merely advanced field medics, and endless fighting becomes the point of life, not as aspect of it. Combat becomes the role, the point of existence. War and combat become the eternal reasons. And a role play game is not a wargame (it can and should in my opinion often encapsulate and encompass things like tactical combat and wargaming, but it should not be limited by them), but instead it is by very definition role-play.

If the only role any character ever does play or ever seeks to play is that of a combatant then by definition you have a wargame, not a role-play game. Though in the case of D&D a tactical wargame, not a strategic one. Meaning even the fights have no real purpose other than "winning the fight and taking spoils."

I don't like the trend among later editions of the game, and I fully understand the rebellion against this trend and impulse, of devolving the game into a mere dressed-up excuse for endless fighting. And usually fighting for no real purpose other than to fight and kill and get stuff without anything else of real importance occurring at all.

If the point of the game is endless combat then it of course makes sense to have creatures with thousands of hit points, an armor class of 79, and who can reach level 57 and deal out 120 points of damage a piece per combat round. But then again all you really have in a game like that is a biological version of a Mech-Droid shooting Warlock bolts instead of plasma cannons. What you have done is taken a role play game and created a table-top Arcade Game out of it. There is no character destiny, no in-game point or purpose, no magic, no miracle, no objective other than the fight.

Implicit in a Role-Play game is the implication that players and characters have a Role to Fulfill, not just a Role to war-play.

You are aware that your entire post is an argument against a straw man, right?
None of the features you are railing against is prominent in any edition of D&D and the number of HP that the toughest monster in the game has have no correlation with the type of game you are playing.

 

[Harlekin]

In a fir of nerdstalgia, last night I was reading through the original 1E Fiend Folio and happened upon the entry for Lolth. Though a minor goddess and Demon Queen, Lolth has only 66 hit points (but a very, very good AC, to be fair; this is even mentioned in the entry). So I started flipping through the book as well as the 1E MM and realized how low the hit point values are on various creatures. Certainly, the damage capabilities of most characters are also low (high level mages notwithstanding). So I pulled out the 2E MM -- PCs have roughly the same "power" as their 1E counterparts, but many of the monsters (dragons in particular) have many more hit points.

Moving to 3E, you see a major hit point boost for all but the lowliest of "mook" monsters -- as well as a massive increase in PC damage potential (except for the Wizard, interestingly). I haven't run the numbers, so I am not sure if it turns out a wash or not.

4E increases monster hit points again, but this time reigning in the PC damage potential by a wide margin.

Because combat is so central to the game, whatever the edition, and hit point attrition is by and large the determinant of lengths of combat, I wonder what impact the hit point inflation trend of the game throughout its editions has on play. How has the tactical; aspect of the game changed throughout the editions, due to this element, and how do players respond to the changing circumstances? How do "mooks" and "minions" fir in to the equation, and where does PC level figure in? When, in fact, does any given monster become a mook or minion?

Looking at HP without taking damage into account will not tell you anything about length of combat. Even though AD&D monsters tend to have fewer HP than 3.x monsters, I remember those fights in AD&D being longer and grindier than any fight in 3.x, simply because the damage output of most PCs and monsters was so low.

A 5th level fighter in AD&D did ~1d8+7 =11.5 damage a hit (+3 str, +2 spec, +2 magic). On the other Hand, a 3.x fighter does 2d6+11 (+7 Str +2 Magic +2 spec ) *1.1 (crits) ~20 damage a hit. So a monster with 80 hp in 3.x is about as tough as a monster with 40 hp in AD&D.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I wonder if we might have any interest around making a new OGL version of DnD, collectively through some kind of open Wiki. Kind of like pathfinder is doing, only instead of a "3.75" approach toward more high-magic, high combat, high-fantasy gaming, how about moving in the opposite direction, more gritty, more immersive, more role playing oriented, say a "3.01" version?

That's sort of what I am trying to do with RCFG.....except it is sort of a 2.90 version, rather than 3.01. I think that 3e made many useful improvements to the game, but earlier editions did some things better.


RC

 

[ExploderWizard]

I wonder if we might have any interest around making a new OGL version of DnD, collectively through some kind of open Wiki. Kind of like pathfinder is doing, only instead of a "3.75" approach toward more high-magic, high combat, high-fantasy gaming, how about moving in the opposite direction, more gritty, more immersive, more role playing oriented, say a "3.01" version?

G.

I don't think high combat has to go hand in hand with high magic and fantasy games.

You can run old editions of D&D as just hack and slash if you want, and you can run newer editions as low combat exploration style games.

It more about the tone and presentation of the rules more than anything else.

Lets look at monster stats and info for a bit. Both OD&D and 4E monster stats are fairly devoid of fluff. You get a bit of info on habitat and thats about it. The difference is in the flavor and general tone of the presentation. The OD&D presentation leaves the door wide open. A given creature could be an enemy, an ally, mentor, or disinterested party.
The 4E presentation is fairly narrow. A creature is given an explicit role to fulfill in combat, informing the DM of the most mathematically sound manner for this creature to behave before being put to the sword.

Can a DM use a creature for whatever purpose he/she wishes? Of course, there are no "real" limitations. The flavor and tone are very different even though you are aren't getting much more than crunch with either set.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

Very, very well put.

I am surprised, and delighted, to find that there are other people around on these boards who percieve gaming the same way I do.

I wonder if we might have any interest around making a new OGL version of DnD, collectively through some kind of open Wiki. Kind of like pathfinder is doing, only instead of a "3.75" approach toward more high-magic, high combat, high-fantasy gaming, how about moving in the opposite direction, more gritty, more immersive, more role playing oriented, say a "3.01" version?

G.

Most definitely.

I have been working on exactly this for the last 4 months. The focus is on mechanics that match the danger involved. The focus is on fewer but more detailed combats, and combats that emphasize more than just one or other of the sides dying. For me this then allows more room for role-playing in and out of combat. Killing things is a last option.

I pretty much have the raw engine worked out in terms of damage/healing, the structure/order of actions in combat as well as degrees of success/failure for these actions. I'm not too sure whether my ideas are exactly what you are looking for (there are several ways to skin this cat), but heh, just putting it out there. I'd definitely be into helping put something like this together.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise