D&D 5E Simulation vs Game - Where should D&D 5e aim?

I dunno, I've read a lot of Shadowrun novels where people get seriously injured and it doesn't significantly impact their ability to act (and then they either get magical healing, spend a week in bed, or die from further wounds).

I also recently started the Dresden Files, and he's shown a remarkable ability to get shot and set on fire and thrown through fences - without letting it impact his performance, but with adequately describing the pain and the effort required to keep going on in spite of his wounds. Of course, he also passes out from his wounds, or gets KO'd outright, on a fair number of occasions.

All in all, I would say that Hit Points do a fantastic job of emulating the wounds that happen in the relevant fiction. (Thankfully, I have little basis in reality with which to offer comparison.)

I'd beg to differ; as applied to D&D, hit points are a terrible representation of the idea of fighting through pain despite wounds, passing out from wounds, being KO'd, etc.

In D&D, you can not be KO'd or pass out from wounds solely and directly due to a particular wound unless that wound takes you below 0 (or your DM is using the massive damage rule and you happen to take enough damage in a single blow to cross that threshold). For routine "the orc hits, you take 6 points of damage" wounds during combat when you still have enough hp, you subtract it from your hp total and continue on as if nothing happened. All of the conditions are independent (stunned, dazed, shaken, etc.) of the amount of hit point damage a particular attack causes. It is a binary effect. You are either 100% effective or your hp crosses zero and you are now 100% ineffective. SWSE tries to fix this using the condition track, but I'm not certain how effective it is as I've never played SWSE.

Let's compare that to some other systems.

1. Marvel Superheroes (yellow box) - you subtract damage taken from your health. When it hits zero, you have to make an Endurance check. You either end up being unconscious or (if you make a bad roll), you start dying - every round your Endurance drops one rank until you cack it or someone helps you.

This sounds very similar to D&D. I'd argue that for a supers game, this type of mechanic works. For D&D in anything other than a superheroic mode of play, it doesn't.

2. Star Frontiers - when your current Stamina drops below 1/2 of the full amount, you can only move at half speed and carry only half, your attacks are at a -10% penalty and you can only fire one shot per turn. Any to-hit roll of 01 or 02 (%-tile system) causes unconsciousness, as does any blunt attack roll that ends with a zero (i.e. 10, 20, 30, etc.) Burn damage that is more than half your Stamina score completely incapacitates you. Not perfect, but certainly shows some intent to cause capability degradation as the character continues to take damage.

3. TORG - this system allows four types of damage when an attack causes injury - shock, knockout, wounds, or knockdown. Shock damage results in unconsciousness. knockouts are a tiered set of damage (representing getting your bell rung) that can lead to unconsciousness or add to your shock damage. Knockdown does just what it says. Wounds have four levels (wounded, heavily wounded, mortally wounded, and dead). Wounds are cumulative (have a heavy wound already and take a second - you are now mortally wounded). Each wound level provides penalties to actions. Mortal wounds also give you shock damage each round. The amount of damage you do results in a sliding scale that starts with KO damage and knockdowns at the lower end and ends up with wounds and shock damage at the higher end.

This seems a bit complicated (perhaps overly so), but it certainly tries to scale capability degradation based upon the wound severity. There is no binary "100% capable until I'm not."

4. Twilight:2013 (Twilight:2000 v3) - in this system, you have a "base hit points" that is determined by your Muscle and Fitness values (think Strength and Constitution in D&D terms). No additional hp gains at each level - you have what you have, whether you are a person, an elephant, or a lion. This system than takes that base value and sets multiples of it as "trip points"for wound levels (slight, moderate, serious, and critical) based upon hit location (so, for example, the torso area has wound trip points at 1 hp, base hp, 2x base hp, and 3x base hp while the head has trip points at 1 hp, base/2 hp, base hp, and base x1.5 hp). In this system, you compare damage from a hit to those thresholds. So - if your base hit points are 10, you have torso trip points of 1, 10, 20, 30 - an attack that hits your chest for 6 points of damage results in a slight wound (1<damage<10). A second wound of similar severity moves your wound level to the next level (so taking a 2nd hit resulting in a serious wound now moves that hit location to the critical level). Each level wound causes some type of capability degradation (from causing just a -1 penalty for a slight wound, up to -4 for a critical wound) as well as the possibility of going into shock or bleeding out and dying, with some wounds (such as a critical head wound) also causing unconsciousness.

I like this system best because it provides increasing levels of capability degradation based upon the level of wound severity along with the chance of being taken out of the fight because of the physiological effects resulting from, but not immediately directly caused by the wound. This is how most people imagine things could possibly happen in real life - when you read accounts of people who pass out from a flesh wound and other people continuing to fight after having taken a lethal wound. May not be a perfect simulation, but it provides the illusion of being a simulation - and that is better than the use of hit points, in my opinion.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

No, you aren't. You've declared that every single pitch, no matter where it is, will be a ball or a strike, before it's even thrown.
Er...of course it's going to be a ball or a strike. It's not like baseball gives you a third option.

See, you have to realise, I play D&D without any secrets mechanically. The players see all my die rolls, the know pretty much automatically what mechanics are being used and most of the time they will have a fairly close estimate of their chances of success or failure before they attempt something. I believe that giving the players as much information as possible allows them to make informed decisions which, in turn, leads to better games.

But, that's just me. But, since I want a game where everything is as transparent as possible, your style simply won't work for me.
And, in all honesty, your style very likely wouldn't work for me as a player.

I'm a big believer in the sense of mystery; that the DM knows a whole bunch of stuff both mechanical and otherwise that the players don't, and that as a player I just have to trust the DM to fairly apply what she knows. I roll to hit, and add +1 for strength and +2 for my magic sword (or, maybe, remind the DM that I've picked up a magic sword that I've no idea what it does yet). The DM tells me whether I've hit or not - I don't (or shouldn't) know my BAB or equivalent, nor the target's AC, nor potentially a bunch of other mitigating factors both in my favour and against.
Ahnehnois said:
I'm not sure how you limit metagaming (I'm assuming that isn't a concern), but as my discussion with @Ratskinner above alludes to, many of us feel there have already been too many compromises in that regard. That is, that players have too much metagame knowledge and authority simply because it makes the game easier to run.
Agreed.

Lanefan
 
Last edited:

A big difference might be the number of DM's at the table. I've very rarely and never in the past twenty years sat at a table where there wasn't three or more people with extensive dming experience.

My current group collectively has around a century of dming experience.
 

I really don't understand the desire some people have to nail down GMing principles and play procedures down to a singular way to play as if every group of players were the same. Context matters here.

From my perspective what matters is that players are real people (my friends). I want to facilitate play that is meaningful, and involves decisions that are as transparent as possible. Meaningful leadership comes from understanding those who place you in a position of trust and trying to get the best out of them. That involves meaningful feedback, openness, and understanding their emotional needs and personal goals for play. Do I falter sometimes? Absolutely, but that does not mean giving up on being as transparent as possible or placing my players as my number one priority. I believe that meaningful decisions require a sense of ownership, transparency, and the will as a GM to make the game about players' characters more than my personal desires for where the game might lead.

Do I think this dynamic is right for every group? Absolutely not. It involves a level of trust and sense of shared purpose that does not fit what every group wants or needs. It also requires players that are committed to the game as whole and to each other. That's why I only play with friends.

Just like every business organization is different every play group is different.
 

/snip

Most people do though. /snip

See, this is where i'm really having a problem. I have no doubt that you enjoy your game. But, you continuously project your preferences onto some imaginary majority. I'd have a lot less criticisms if you were presenting things as, "This is how I like to play" rather than, "This is the basic DMing 101 way to play and anything else is doing it wrong because most people play the way I do".

Yes, every attempt to manipulate/break the rules and force an unreasonable outcome was indeed stonewalled. If you were an actual player in this game, you might have to accept that (gasp!) your plan to use charm magic on royalty was DOA. Welcome to D&D.

Remember, we were charming the chamberlain, not the king. We were trying to see the king, not charm him. We were attempting to use diplomacy to influence the chamberlain to see the king, an example for the use of diplomacy that was pulled directly from the 3e and 3.5 PHB. The idea of charm person was added when diplomacy was ruled impossible. Apparently using charm person to influence someone's reactions was breaking the rules and forcing an unreasonable outcome.

Do you honestly not see why I might have a problem with this?
 

I like this system best because it provides increasing levels of capability degradation based upon the level of wound severity along with the chance of being taken out of the fight because of the physiological effects resulting from, but not immediately directly caused by the wound. This is how most people imagine things could possibly happen in real life - when you read accounts of people who pass out from a flesh wound and other people continuing to fight after having taken a lethal wound. May not be a perfect simulation, but it provides the illusion of being a simulation - and that is better than the use of hit points, in my opinion.
Right, and I'd totally be on board with this, in most circumstances. It just makes sense, intuitively.

What I was saying, though, is that Hit Points as D&D uses them are accurately represented in fiction. In all of the stories, unlike in real life, the heroes have plot importance which guarantees they never fail at an important task because of their wounds. They may make it sound like it's terribly inconvenient to have a broken rib and an arrow sticking from the torso, but it doesn't actually increase their chance of failure - it doesn't imply a penalty.
 

A big difference might be the number of DM's at the table. I've very rarely and never in the past twenty years sat at a table where there wasn't three or more people with extensive dming experience.
Perhaps that's where my using a mostly-homebrew system works out well, then; as even though I've got various DMs at the table only one really knows the system I'm using (he did the lion's share of designing it) so it's still easy to maintain at least a veneer of mystery.

Lanefan
 

Perhaps that's where my using a mostly-homebrew system works out well, then; as even though I've got various DMs at the table only one really knows the system I'm using (he did the lion's share of designing it) so it's still easy to maintain at least a veneer of mystery.

Lanefan

I could see that. In our 3e games, I generally let one of the players be rules guru. She knew the rules better than I did, so most rules questions went through her.

In our 4e games, we try to stay as close to the book as we can simply because it's easier. Any house rules get pretty thoroughly vetted before introduction.

Not a whole lot of mystery there. ;)
 

I dunno, I've read a lot of Shadowrun novels where people get seriously injured and it doesn't significantly impact their ability to act (and then they either get magical healing, spend a week in bed, or die from further wounds).

I also recently started the Dresden Files, and he's shown a remarkable ability to get shot and set on fire and thrown through fences - without letting it impact his performance, but with adequately describing the pain and the effort required to keep going on in spite of his wounds. Of course, he also passes out from his wounds, or gets KO'd outright, on a fair number of occasions.

All in all, I would say that Hit Points do a fantastic job of emulating the wounds that happen in the relevant fiction. (Thankfully, I have little basis in reality with which to offer comparison.)

Unless you are talking about 4E hit points I disagree. This is because it is, as you say, common for action heroes to not suffer meaningful penalties within a subsequent scene although there is recovery time. But it is also as you say not unknown for heroes to pass out from their wounds or get KO'd within the action scene itself. With classic (non-D&D) hit points this just doesn't happen. Once someone's hit points drop to zero they are out. Without magic they are going to be on a single hit point (or a tiny handful) for the entire rest of the adventure. With 4e hit points it is entirely possible to have someone pass out or be taken out (reduced to 0hp) and have them continue the rest of the adventure while not either being fragile as spun glass or receiving magical healing. They are still wounded (having spent healing surges) but not being stopped or even seriously impeded by them (full hit points). Of course an extended rest should be longer than 8 hours...
 


Remove ads

Top