Rex Blunder said:
I think that there is a difference of opinion on what some words mean.
Stormbringer, you have several times used the phrase "totally abstract". I think you and I are using different functional definitions of "abstract".
When I see "abstract" used to describe game rules, I usually think it means something like "for ease of play, several factors are lumped together into one mechanic". An abstract rule tries to model the outcome without fiddling around with simulating the causes.
For instance, the minute-long combat round of 1e is abstract. It doesn't try to model the effect of parries and footwork. It says, "During a minute, each opponent will get one (or more) good attacks in: we won't worry how."
Therefore, something can't be "totally" abstract. Either it tries to determine the effect of the factors, or it doesn't.
By this definition, hit points have been abstract since 1e (I make no claims about earlier editions). Gygax presents a laundry list of factors that can explain high hit points: physical health, luck, magical and divine protection, etc. He doesn't try to determine what percentage of each hit is absorbed by each of these.
I'm willing to believe every hit does some physical damage. The Gygax quote can be read to support that view. However, the amount of actual physical damage, according to Gygax, can be very small (a "graze").
You keep on talking about "totally abstract". Therefore, to you, abstract isn't binary, and 4e HP are somehow MORE abstract. Perhaps to you, "abstract" means "entirely nonphysical"? Then your argument makes more sense.
In the strictest sense, yes. In the context of hit point discussions, there are seeming degrees of it. With 4e, the hit points have to be more or less totally divorced from physical damage - 'totally abstract' - in order for the Warlord yelling at someone have a 'healing' effect. In order to re-inforce that view, many arguments have been presented trying to demonstrate that hit points have always been 'totally abstract'. In other words, they were never representative of physical damage, to demonstrate the radical change isn't actually a change at all.
As you mention, how much is abstracted, and what the abstraction represents is rather open to interpretation. I am not totally averse to the non-physical components being there. I don't disagree that it is, to some degree, nonsensical to expect a fighter to endure fifteen sword thrusts before dropping. There are certain vagaries, of course, in that most people don't die from a single knife wound, but others will. The more physical trauma, the more likely eventual or instant death. But again, unless the rules provide some kind of incredibly detailed hit location system, a la Rolemaster, and the effects of those location hits, a generic pool of 'hit points' works just fine, but it would work better with two different tracks, like the Wound Point/Vitality point system in Star Wars. Then, the Leader can shout your minor scratches and bruises away, but three arrows to the chest is going to take a bit of recovery time. As Murphy's Laws of Combat state, "A sucking chest wound is nature's way of telling you to slow down."
Also, "Disingenuous" means "lying", correct? I don't think there's any evidence of lying in this thread. Please don't make accusations of malice where misunderstanding can fit the bill.
Not precisely lying, more like 'ignoring certain premises'. Again, when someone tries to make an argument that hit points have always been abstract, of course that is correct. On the surface. The underlying premise usually infers '...and not physical'. Which is the only way it can work in 4e with the design for healing. If this was the first time it had ever come up, I would grant that some parts may have been missed, namely, the parts where it says hit points also represent physical damage. After 30+ years of debate, however, I have a hard time believing that those parts have been missed. 'Glossed over', certainly. But honestly missed?
I am also absolutely behind people using hit points however they want. I'm not the Game Police Chief Inspector. If a particular group wants hit points to represent silver threads from the Ethereal Plane, I say 'go for it'. Now, if that same group wants to present an argument about how that is how hit points have always been, well, that is where I usually step in.
I'm not debating that hit points are abstractions. Clearly they are. I want to make sure people are informed about what that abstraction has meant, historically, and the various problems that arise with that view, as well as the 'non-physical' view. They both have their problems, but without having all the details, how would one make an informed decision about how they want to implement them?
