Who is "we" in this sentence?
Me, and the other posters who indicated they couldn't imagine D&D without hit points
That's an odd conflation; I couldn't imagine
D&D without hit points, but that doesn't mean in the slightest that I think of hit points as an essential part of
RPGs. D&D is just one (and first, chronologically) among a plethora of RPGs that have tremendous variety and scope.
Here are some well-known RPGs that don't use D&D-style hit points:
Tunnels and Trolls: damage is rated numerically, and comes directly off CON;
Rolemaster/MERP/HARP: damage is rated in concussion hits, which are "meat" (bruising and blood loss), and in numerical penalties (eg -10 to all actions) and disabilities (eg blinded) of various sorts;
RuneQuest: damage is rated numerically, comes of hit points, which are "meat", and hit point loss leads to both numerical penalties and disabilities (eg maimed) of various sorts;
Burning Wheel: damage is rated on a scale, and the scale determines a numerical penalty (eg -1D to all actions) which in turn, as part of the healng mechanics, can lead to disabilities (eg maimed) of various sorts;
Traveller: damage is rated numerically, and comes directly off physical stats.
Hit points are not at all ingrained in how I think about RPGs. In fact, I see them as pretty distinctive to D&D.
I would debate that any of those, or any non-D&D rpg is "well-known", or has a comparable influence in how rpg players think about game design.
What?? Those must be some of the most well known RPGs out there - so, what you're saying is, basically, "only D&D counts"??? FFS - recognise that there are a whole range of roleplaying games out there, and they all have different design aims (well, many of them do, at any rate) and they support many styles of play. You don't need to warp D&D to the "one true style" of play you want to play - there will be a game out there that does it much better already.
As for the hit points thing; I would actually count all those games as doing "hit points lite" - along with the World of Darkness games and the like (which give saving throws to avoid losing each hit point, and name each hit point, to boot!)
For "non-hit-point" games, I would look at games more like HârnMaster (the original "a wound is a (bad) thing that you gain, not a pool of 'life' you lose", game), PrimeTime Adventures, Fiasco, Universalis and the like. It's true that these are not so well known - a shame, in my view - but for a simulationist game this approach works much better on several levels. It would actually not be too hard to do something similar using 4e mechanisms; each wound becomes essentially a "disease" that is tracked on the disease track. Of course, the whole combat system changes fundamentally, since taking the number of "hits" that D&D combat typically dishes out is completely unmanageable in this sort of system.
Thanks for the insightful reply. I wanted to go into a little detail on these two quotes.
I think you describe a very valid concern. It's hard to get everyone on the same page, and if someone has a privileged role in judgement that can spell problems. I've had my share of issues with this style of play in the past. However, that role can be powerful if used well.
I think I (as DM here) don't have many problems with fictional positioning influencing mechanical resolution because I take the view that we're all in this game together. I rarely say "No" flat-out; usually it's "I can't see that working; help me out here." When it comes to modifiers, I prefer to let the players add their own - because it's easier and I trust them - while everyone accepts the fact that I have final say.
We also get up and physically act things out if they are confusing, so that helps.
As for rewarding players for having the same world-physics model: I think that's true, but I think it's a powerful tool. It helps get people on the same page, imagining together. I also think that you have to be willing to give and change your perception of the world-physics model as either DM or player.
I think this is similar to the "don't be a dick" rule, but maybe it's a little more... nuanced. I think the game should make it clear that everyone is working at the same goal - an enjoyable experience - and everyone should keep that in mind while filling their roles and responsibilities.
I can't xp you at the minute, but thanks for more food for thought.
If I put my "running Hârn" hat on, I think I can see the uses of this tool. For D&D I have found it unnecessary (and have been put off it - see below), so I just avoid it, for the most part.
I think so. It removes most of the high-stress situations, especially the socially high-stress situations. You're not worried about creating compelling fiction all the time.
I wonder if DMs who take on that role (that is, the responsibility to describe the details of abstract actions in a compelling way) suffer more burnout than those who don't.
This is a really good insight, I think. I can recognise elements of burnout around the time I "fell out of love" with the "describe everything" style of roleplaying. I think there is an element of players demanding the GM create a whole world for them to play with - and they had better damn well make it believable - out there. Nowadays I expect the players to take a role in envisioning the world and making it real for themselves; if they aren't prepared to engage to that extent on their own initiative I don't see why I should spend time preparing stuff to support their play.
I once had a DM who insisted on in-character role play with EVERY SINGLE NPC. No matter what. Buying a crossbow as a half hour of small talk with the shop keeper. One of the other players ate it up. She loved that sort of thing. Me? I totally tuned out. Did not care. We had other, bigger issues going on and I couldn't believe that I spent a significant part of a session (our sessions were only 3 hours) talking about the weather to random shop keeper
#1 .
That is very much a play style thing tied to the aims/agenda of play. For D&D it would bug me no end; the aim of play is to explore "dungeons" (where a "dungeon" could be above ground, even on a cloud, or could be a plot or intrigue just as well as it might be an actual hole in the ground) - to go on an "adventure", basically - so time spent making small talk with a grunt is time wasted.
When I run Hârn, though, the
players will likely
want to chat to the gate guard, because he may well have news that they want to know. The kind of "interesting stuff" the characters are involved in - and the players are engaging with - are very different between the two games. Time for an example:
A recent sequence of events led the Hârn PCs to investigate a murder in a fairly remote manor. The situation was complicated considerably by a young man who, while very much enamoured of a maid who clearly had feelings for him, refused to consider marriage to her. It turned out that this was because, on a trip to a town on a neighbouring island, he had apparently been seduced by a local girl while rather drunk and had married her and slept with her while inebriated.
Thus it was that our 'heroes' pitched up at the said town - on business of their own - with an interest in finding and interrogating the lass whom the rather gullible lad had "married". Despite impromptu "pirate raids" (actually a clever ploy by a thief seeking to rob a rich smithy in the town) and sundry red herrings, the PCs did manage to track down and obtain a confession from the guilty locals.
In a setting like this, talking to gate guards (and market traders, and innkeepers, laundry maids, fishermen and smiths) can be a vital step towards getting what you want done actually done.