How do you handle hit points?

robus said:

But more likely I'm not fully grokking the issue?

Click to expand...

So the issue, such as it is, is the extent to which the semantic change essentially alters the process of play. Complicating that is that without a doubt the change in perspective about play can itself alter the process of play, simply by changing how the players want to or expect to play.

Most people seem to be focusing on the change in semantics has freed players to narrate their actions and the outcome of their actions. The problem that I have with that is that a GM simply prompting the player to provide narration seems just as likely to accomplish, or not accomplish that same effect. So, for example, this change in perspective could have prompted the original poster to then prompt the players for narration, and it's that asking the player to provide a certain process that is the real factor in the change in play.

For example, at some tables a player is required to provide dialogue when their character wants to influence the game world via a social skill, while at other tables the player is only required to state their goal. That's a change in procedure that doesn't seem to require a change in perspective about skill checks, since some groups do it and some groups don't usually based on a bunch of other factors. Some writers have I think improperly tried to link the idea of dialogue to the rules of an edition of a game, and have suggested that because of the rules of edition X, you can't use dialogue or are forced to use dialogue. I don't find that argument compelling, not only because it goes against my own anecdotal experience. In practice, I think that this is a proxy argument that people advance to justify their own preferred edition, and as such it's just 'edition warring'.

I think simply making the player roll damage (now called "defense" or something) to find out how difficult it is to fend off the successful attack is all that's need to adjust to this definition of HP?

Click to expand...

Not so far as I'm concerned. That would to me be another change without real substance.

So a real change where hit points were spent...

Imagine combat works like this.

a) One party proposes to enter into a combat.
b) The two parties state the goals that they have in the combat. So party one may say, "If I win, your dead and I get to eat you." And the other party says, "If I win, I get away safely carrying a valuable treasure, and your character won't be able to catch up for the duration of the adventure."
c) The two parties then bid their "hit points" from their hit point pool based on how badly they want to win. In this case, the stakes of the combat are unequal, so we'd expect the party that is going to die if he loses to bid all or most of his remaining hit points, especially if the combat is relatively equal. The two parties can take turns raising their bids until both have gone "all in" or "called", at which point we deduct their hit points.
d) We then resolve the combat by some fortune mechanic, say each party rolls 1d20 and adds the bidded hit points plus there combat skill bonus, with the higher total winning. Once we've determined the winner, we apply the stakes set in step B.

In this case, the players really are spending their hit points. They do not have to spend hit points, but can strategically outlay hit points as a resource in hopes to mitigate luck and/or win the combats they really care about.

The problem I have is that simply saying that a person is "spending hit points" when in fact they are being forcibly deducted as a the result of an attack, and not spending hit points isn't really a choice nor is determining how many hit points to spend really something you can choose, doesn't really feel like it ought to change the process of play. But apparently, for some it does?

Rather than focusing on the narration change as the substantial change in the process, I'm focusing on something else as a potentially much more substantial change - fortune at the end rather than fortune in the middle. (Note that the hypothetical D&D with hit points as narrative currency I outline above also uses fortune at the end.) But so far, I haven't gotten any takers to engage with that perceived change, even to the extent of affirming or denying it is happening.

Celebrim said:

Rather than focusing on the narration change as the substantial change in the process, I'm focusing on something else as a potentially much more substantial change - fortune at the end rather than fortune in the middle. (Note that the hypothetical D&D with hit points as narrative currency I outline above also uses fortune at the end.) But so far, I haven't gotten any takers to engage with that perceived change, even to the extent of affirming or denying it is happening.

Click to expand...

I see. Yeah, I've nothing useful to contribute in that discussion

[MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION] - I'd say you're right. There's no real functional difference in saying that you are spending HP vs losing HP. At the end of the day, you are down 9 HP either way.

The difference is in perception. Because D&D has never actually modeled process simulation at all, despite protestations to the contrary, HP loss in the traditional method doesn't make a lick of sense. You cannot actually narrate any HP loss without the chance of contradiction until combat is over. Otherwise, you run into all sorts of issues - how did you heal that gash in a day (3e D&D and later)? - you were dying six seconds ago and now you can run a marathon, how? - how can those wounds not have any impact on your performance? etc.

But, by switching it around, and allowing the players to explain how they have avoided the negative consequence (typically death in D&D), then all the burden of contradiction lies on the player. You shift all the narrative power to the player and all the narrative responsibility. It's up to the player to determine the answer to all those questions.

That perceptual shift is a much bigger deal, I think, than you seem to realize.

The orc tries to hit you for 8 HP. What happens? Even though the player can't avoid the 8 hp loss, the player can now control some of the fiction. It turns the player from a passive consumer of the narrative that the DM is putting forth into an active creator of that narrative.

I'm 110% (heh) in favor of ANYTHING that puts more narrative power into the hands of the players.

Man this thread brings back memories. I remember a blazing row with Raven Crowking and others on this topic that went on for 30 pages or so. I do like [MENTION=67296]Laurefindel[/MENTION]'s approach to the topic.


For the record, I almost never narrate hp loss, too tedious, other than indicating increasing fatigue on the part of NPCs as they HP drains away. I have come to view HP as plot protection. A resource that keeps you in the story and you stay there until you loose it. Then things become questionable.


I did in my youth explore other options, simulationist systems have too much random death and yet not random enough. While very few people survive 10 stab wounds some have lived long enough to take out their attacker. Wound systems tend toward the death spiral, and while that might be realistic it is not much fun.


So, I tend to not think too hard about hit points and go with, while you have them you are still in the game and when they are gone at the mercy of others.

[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]: I concede that since this be a matter of human instincts, I may in fact just not get it.

I don't think that D&D's wound abstractions produce nearly as much of a potential for contradiction as you suggest.

I also don't think D&D dictates who is responsible for the color of the fiction in as far as it impacts the players, and I certainly think in the absence of guidance the players are free to narrate the consequences of their own failures and successes. Indeed, at my table I try to keep a hard and fast rule that as the GM I will never dictate to the players how they feel and try to as much as possible never dictate to them how their characters respond to events, either by thought, word, or action. And, if a player insisted on dictating their own successes and failures, I'd be quite happy with that (few players I've played with want that much burden to produce narration and description though).

So, whether a player sees self-narration as a bonus or a burden isn't something I think I can change with a "perceptual shift". I can always prompt a character for narration of consequences, but it's not like I usually have players who feel that they are constrained or handcuffed by the system not allowing them to do that. Again, player's are always free to narrate their own RP, it's just that most of them would rather do that only when they feel inspired to do so.

I'm 110% (heh) in favor of ANYTHING that puts more narrative power into the hands of the players.

Click to expand...

So, this is getting ahead of myself, but I don't actually think this does that. On the contrary, the big winner in terms of a gain in narrative power is the GM. I don't think the players are really losing narrative power here, but I think the GM is claiming narrative power from the dice. The big winner in this stance or perspective is the GM, because the GM is I think going to turn out to be the dominate stake setter in this version of Fortune At The End. The reason to adopt this stance or perspective is not to empower the players, but to give the GM the ability to produce results he otherwise could only produce with more heavy handed railroading tactics, such as for example, having players get captured.

Now and then I will give status updates on a monster - "The giant lurches toward you, holding its guts in with one hand and flailing wildly with the club in the other." But unless it kills a big enemy, deals a truly spectacular amount of damage in one shot, or does something otherwise memorable, I don't narrate each attack. That would take too long, and it would also make combat far too much work.

I have a vague sense that I was more descriptive back in the misty days of yore, but I suspect that was because combat had far less going on in a mechanical sense. If the DM didn't punch up the descriptions, there was an awful lot of "Roll to hit. Roll damage. The monster rolls to hit. The monster rolls damage." While 5E is not as tactically deep as 4E, it's still light-years beyond AD&D and BD&D.

I watched the Tomb Raider reboot not long ago and one thing I came away with was how much the way Lara takes a beating but still pushes through is almost exactly how I imagine a PC adventuring: lots of near death experiences and bruising fights and yet each night she bandages her wounds and readies herself to fight another day. A few non-adventuring days puts her back 100% once more. Yes it’s not “real” but it’s heroic and isn’t that what we’re aiming for?

Or for a different example, James Bond in Casino Royale. He takes a few epic beatings (and poisoning) and yet is able to come back fighting when the need calls.

The one thing they generally share is that they don’t lose limbs or suffer massive internal damage (even though they probably should ). Their fighting spirit keeps them going to superhuman lengths.

Whoa,,,,

Laurefindel said:

…and I don't want to hijack this tread in a lengthy dissertation either. I'm just answering to the subject of the thread...

Click to expand...

So much for that…

Celebrim said:

I don't really see a huge difference in a resource being "voluntarily spent" rather than "forcibly taken" if the consequences of not "voluntarily spending" something is death.

Click to expand...

A voluntary choice between perfectly fine and perfectly dead isn’t really a choice, voluntary or not. I’ll give you that.

However, it does enable me as a DM to use hp with other stakes than death. I’m sure I would be able to do just that with damage-as-hp-lost too. For what it’s worth, I apply the same philosophy with skill checks; failure doesn’t necessarily mean failing at the task at hand; it might be failing at completing the task fast enough, well enough, impressive enough etc. The consequences of failure don't need to be catastrophic even in the most hazardous conditions.

Celebrim said:

A player can't buy a result different than the one that they got, other than "death" (or similar loss). A player can't buy a partial result: they can't decide to spend 7 hit points and take 1/8th of a consequence.

Click to expand...

That’s true; it is an all-or-nothing cost. But other than lacking in granularity, I don’t have any problems seeing damage as a cost you must pay rather than a fatality you suffer. I don’t mean to make the latter sound pejorative; I see your point.

Celebrim said:

All that is just color though

Click to expand...

I’ll agree to that, albeit that it is a colour I find pleasing. I didn’t mean to pretend otherwise. Anyhow, I’m sure our playstyles are actually a lot closer than this discussion leads to believe. I’m sure I'd be quite happy at your table.

Celebrim said:

/snip

So, this is getting ahead of myself, but I don't actually think this does that. On the contrary, the big winner in terms of a gain in narrative power is the GM. I don't think the players are really losing narrative power here, but I think the GM is claiming narrative power from the dice. The big winner in this stance or perspective is the GM, because the GM is I think going to turn out to be the dominate stake setter in this version of Fortune At The End. The reason to adopt this stance or perspective is not to empower the players, but to give the GM the ability to produce results he otherwise could only produce with more heavy handed railroading tactics, such as for example, having players get captured.

Click to expand...

To be fair though, it does work both ways. Now, capture is a bit different, because in 5e, that's actually not that hard to do. You can already simply narrate that you didn't kill the target after you've dealt damage. But, yeah, it opens up all sorts of options, for both the DM and the players. In any case, the DM is always the dominant stake setter. Has to be since he's controlling all the opponents (unless it's PC vs PC, but, that's a different kettle of fish). Always has been really. What is the monster trying to do to you has pretty much always been the purview of the DM.

But, it's not self-narration is it? The orc still attacks you. You're narrating why the orc didn't just cave in your skull with his club. It's not your success or failure that you're narrating. Not really. You're narrating the monster's failure to achieve whatever that monster is trying to do. And, sure, it's not really a choice, more of a HP tax on narration. You have to pay every time, you have no real choice in the matter. But, it's still YOU paying, not the DM telling you what happens. It makes the players active participants rather than simply receiving whatever the DM wants to dish out.

And, it works both ways. When the player attacks the monster, the player doesn't narrate his hits. The DM would. Why didn't the paladin chop the goblin's head off?

I have to admit, I can see a lot of things opening up if you head in this direction.

Hussar said:

[MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION] - I'd say you're right. There's no real functional difference in saying that you are spending HP vs losing HP. At the end of the day, you are down 9 HP either way.

Click to expand...

There's no functional difference if you are redefining "spend" as "lose" the way you are doing. In 3e there was a blood mage prestige class I saw somewhere. It could spend hit points to gain effects for spells. That's spending hit points. It's an option. If you have no real option, and no opting to die is not a real option, then you are not spending hit points at all. You are losing the. Just like when you pay taxes, you are not spending money as the taxes are not really optional, even though I you could opt to not pay them and go to prison.

The difference is in perception. Because D&D has never actually modeled process simulation at all, despite protestations to the contrary, HP loss in the traditional method doesn't make a lick of sense. You cannot actually narrate any HP loss without the chance of contradiction until combat is over. Otherwise, you run into all sorts of issues - how did you heal that gash in a day (3e D&D and later)? - you were dying six seconds ago and now you can run a marathon, how? - how can those wounds not have any impact on your performance? etc.

But, by switching it around, and allowing the players to explain how they have avoided the negative consequence (typically death in D&D), then all the burden of contradiction lies on the player. You shift all the narrative power to the player and all the narrative responsibility. It's up to the player to determine the answer to all those questions.

Click to expand...

Switching it around doesn't change anything with regard to how hit point loss happens in the fiction. The player is still losing("spending") hit points to avoid death, but when he hits 0, he's still dying one moment and running a marathon the next, or healing the gash in a day. The potential contradictions are still there. The only difference is that it's the player describing the potential contradictions and not the DM.