Flavour First vs Game First - a comparison

[Mallus]

But there are similarities (again) to quantum mechanics.

Stop it. You're making the Baby Max Planck cry.

This is exactly akin to ignoring the difference between a 20 and a 200 foot drop because, given the question "Can it kill you?" they are both answered "yes" in a bipolar, yes/no paradigm. I do not subscribe to such a coarse measure of realism.

Note that I never asked that question nor framed things that way. You did. I just said arguments about how real a fictional event seem are, invariably, arguments about art.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I prefer the system I forked, as I have no desire for the extra bookkeeping that a "wound track" would have.

Which one? (Did I miss that?)

Edit:
Did you mean this one?

My objection is that you're effectively down to half hit points or less. It still works only with magical healing. Or if you base your entire game system (including expected monster damage and stuff) around it, you end up with the "typical state" of a character not being the baseline state of the character. A similar phenomena too 3E buff spells - you cast long-term buffs that effectively represent your typical character state (with enhancement bonuses to ability scores, or magical bonuses to AC and attacks), but your baseline character is lower. I am not a fan of this approach. I prefer to have the baseline state of your character (that might contain magical - or in some case cybernetic - enhancements, but they are all permanent/always on) and only modify it for short-term tasks. The alternative less transparency and makes predictability harder (for example - should CRs be based on the baseline or on the augmented statistics?)
Obviously, your mileage will vary.

 

[Mallus]

Works for me and others though.

Oh don't get me wrong. Hit points in 1e-3e work fine for me too. I just make no claims about them being realistic, or simulationist, or whatever.

This is probably why Healing Surges present no significantly difficulty for me, either.

 

[Scribble]

Good thing that is not, and is explicitly not, what hit points have ever represented, in any incarnation of the game.

I agree, which is why I've never tried to map them to an acurate depiction of physical injury.

So, yes, I'll agree that your hypothetical system is as bad as 4e's actual system, where my apparent "mistake" is either trying to describe hit point loss in-world or trying to describe hit point recovery in-world.

The mistake is coming up with a situation that doesn't work, and then blaming the system for that mistake.

You're saying that it's unbelievable that the wound stiches itself up. Yep it is! But where in the game does it indicate this is what happens? YOU are creating that aspect.

Thats the same as if I were to say: "The axe bites deep, causing you to drop to the ground dead" while your characetr has 50 hp left, and then saying dude this game is BUNK! How can you survive that axe hit I described as killing you???

You're describing an action in an unrealistic way and unhappy with the results of your own description.

Yes, sometimes the narrative of the game is directed in part by the rules of the game. If I KNOW you have 50 hp left, I also know I cannot decribe a 10hp axe hit as killing you without ignoring the rules of the game.

I cannot say I jump over the yawning chasm, fail my jump check, and then complain shoedinger's cat shanked me.

In a similar fashion I cannot describe an effect of a hit without taking into account the rest of the rules of the game. If you do so, you're creating the problem, not finding one.

You must either:

1. Accept HP do not represent physical injury, and recovering HP does not represent healing physical wounds.

or

2. Accept HP represents physical wounds but avoid describing things as gaping wounds until the final death blow.

or

3. Be ok with wounds stiching themselves back up without the benefit of magic somehow.

All three are valid, depending on personal taste.

(Of course, when I said that 4e hit points didn't map to in-world events, I was told I was wrong there too. Schrödinger's Arguement about Schrödinger's Wounding? Man, that cat gets around!)


RC

This is because of the power of narrative. Really HP can map to whatever you want them to, you just have to be prepaired for the consequences of your own imagination, and how it interacts with the rules of the game. Some depictions will result in more situations that seem absurd.

Personally I long ago gave up mapping HP to real injury. It just never made sense. I've tried using injury tracking stuff, but it just gets cumbersome in my opinion. You might feel otherwise, and I don't fault you at all. For some it's fun, but in my games I've found it only leads to a lot of laying around waiting for broken bones to heal.

 

[apoptosis]

I think a better way to put it is that pre-4e, HP damage one characteristic of real, physical injury, namely, "requiring weeks to heal", but at the same time lacked most the other important characteristics, like "impairment", "loss of physical capability" and "susceptibility to further injury via complication and infection".

In my view that single shared characteristic doesn't make the prior edition's take on HP markedly more realistic.

yes but your version is too verbose

I agree with your pre-4E definition. It is on the mark.

How specific gamers feel about that characterstics ability to detail a good yarn, will vary greatly.

Certain subsystems (Torn-asunder, combat and tactics guide in 2E) did try ot incorporate those elements with a very subjective level of success.

 

[Raven Crowking]

You must either:

1. Accept HP do not represent physical injury, and recovering HP does not represent healing physical wounds.

or

2. Accept HP represents physical wounds but avoid describing things as gaping wounds until the final death blow.

or

3. Be ok with wounds stiching themselves back up without the benefit of magic somehow.

All three are valid, depending on personal taste.

Must I?

If I accept hit points as representing physical wounds, how do I explain those hit points being completely restored following a healing surge? Bob's magic adrenelin closed his nicks and cuts? Or those nicks and cuts are suddenly no longer represented by hit points?

If hit points represent physical wounds -- to any degree -- then restoring all your hit points means that you have no more physical wounds. "Physical wounds = hit point damage" implies "no hit point damage = no physical wounds".

So let's say that hit points don't represent physical wounds at all. Good to go. What are healing spells doing, though? What exactly is killing you when that last arrow hits if not physical wounds? What does "bloodied" mean if no blood has been drawn?

That leaves us with #3, which is unpalatable.

But then, this has all been said before.

RC

 

[Mallus]

My nine-year-old daughter has no problem understanding hit points, and has no problem understanding how hit points work in terms of both game mechanics and the win conditions of the game.

Congrats on having a smart daughter! (note: I'm not being snarky here. I didn't realize before this that you were a parent).

... and some claim that it is unrealistic because of that lack of detail.

Let's switch burden of proof to you for a moment. Do think the pre-4e D&D hit point mechanics are realistic? They work fine, but I don't think even EGG himself ever described them as 'realistic'.

But please note that it it the subsystem (falling damage; healing surge) that causes the problem, not the hit point mechanic itself.

The problem with the relative 'realism' of HP is that wounds can't impair you until they knock you unconscious and deposit on death's door. This fact causes some people --ie me-- to label hit points 'unrealistic'. Mind you, they're still perfectly serviceable as a game mechanic, they merely fail the 'realism test'.

Of course, if you really think that the hit point mechanic is so terrible, you must find it annoying to have it continued, and made more terrible yet, in 4e, right?

I don't find hit points terrible at all. I just don't find them realistic. Though I do prefer the Damage Save mechanic from Mutants and Masterminds --that's actually my favorite d20 game.

 

[Fenes]

So, whatever happens, don't describe any hit as deadly, until the target is actually dead? So, a blow that knocks a character into the negative won't be described as serious, up and until the charater dies, since he could recover and be as good as new thanks to a healing surge before that?

 

[Mallus]

So, a blow that knocks a character into the negative won't be described as serious, up and until the charater dies, since he could recover and be as good as new thanks to a healing surge before that?

Exactly.

"Your axe connects with the foes torso and he staggers backwards, bleeding and then falls to the ground."

Whether or not he gets back up remains to be seen. Honestly, haven't you ever seen an action movie or read a comic book? Seemingly lethal injuries are par for the course.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Stop it. You're making the Baby Max Planck cry.

Can you stop him? Baby Max Planck cries constantly!

Note that I never asked that question nor framed things that way. You did. I just said arguments about how real a fictional event seem are, invariably, arguments about art.

Insofar, and only insofar, as fiction is art, yes.

Which one? (Did I miss that?)

Edit:
Did you mean this one?

Yep.

My objection is that you're effectively down to half hit points or less. It still works only with magical healing. Or if you base your entire game system (including expected monster damage and stuff) around it, you end up with the "typical state" of a character not being the baseline state of the character.

How so?

Because you know how much damage can be shaken off at the time damage is taken, you can describe it accurately at that time. The arrow of time never need be in jeopardy.

I'm not following the problem with your "typical state" argument. Want to jump into the other thread with me?