D&D 5E what is it about 2nd ed that we miss?

[Maxperson]

I've already told you I believe it to be the implication created by the way in which the rules you already know where to find are written. That you disagree that the implication is made does not actually mean it isn't.

Since it is not written, that makes it nothing more than a house rule of yours.

There is no rule that does such a thing, because the words found in the rule you are mentioning do not mean what you are claiming them to mean - especially not when this rule starts with "Dungeon Masters describe hit point loss in different ways." which shows its meaning to provide suggestions, not enumerating the one and only way that hit point loss can be described.

Right. Different ways, but typically damage has no sign until 50%. Typically means 50%+. If something happens less often than that, it is not what is typical. You are free to describe damage however you like within those constraints. Unless you house rule a change anyway.

I'm not.

You just admitted to it above. You admitted that there is no such rule, so you must be making it up based on your belief that it is implied. Your belief in an implication is irrelevant, though. Implications are not part of the rules. Only rules are part of the rules, and no rule backs you up.

 

[Maxperson]

So do players in your game never use any kind of healing until past the 50% HP threshold?

Of course they do. Healing before then is like combat, a necessary evil in order for the game to be playable. There is no way to describe damage that isn't 100% meat and let's the PCs know how much damage has been taken. There is also no way to describe non-meat damage that has no sign, but that the PC can know about. Further, almost every way to describe non-meat damage also describes the PCs in non-combat situations.

Fatigue happens out of combat, so unless you expect the clerics to go around healing the PCs when they get tired or winded from a jog, that doesn't work to describe hit points. Other non-meat descriptions have similar circumstances.

One thing I did in 2E that I miss a little bit is that for one campaign that I DMed, I kept track of all damage. I rolled damage to the PCs behind the screen, and kept track of their HP, and used only description to convey what happened to them with each hit, and where they were at overall. It created a very interesting dynamic because they were by no means certain how to allocate their healing resources. It resulted in some interesting situations.

Ultimately I abandoned it because the bookkeeping aspect of it did not justify the slight increase in dramatic tension that it sometimes created.

I also tried that in 2e and abandoned it for the same reasons you did. I'm not even sure they made it to 3rd level before I tossed in that towel.

However, this discussion reminded me of that campaign because absent HP, I still had to explain to the players what was happening to their characters. I'd never have even thought to say nothing at all until they were at half HP. That seems like a very odd interpretation.

I agree. That's a 4e/5e mistake. Most hits that I describe are a combination of luck, skill, meat, and so on. The meat being scratches, bruises and such until the hit points are low enough to warrant larger injuries.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

However, this discussion reminded me of that campaign because absent HP, I still had to explain to the players what was happening to their characters. I'd never have even thought to say nothing at all until they were at half HP. That seems like a very odd interpretation.

"The ogres swings and misses!" *records 17 damage to the PC*

 

[Neonchameleon]

I am entertained to see you admit that FATE is not a tabletop RPG. Even I would not go that far... on these forums... with the moderators watching.

And you read my posts about as well as you do the Fate rules. Fate is a tabletop RPG. It is however a tabletop RPG that has chosen to take on the problems of a tabletop RPG and do something about them.

The point of an RPG ruleset is not to manipulate the emotional state of its players. An RPG ruleset exists to provide impartial adjudication, so that players can make the decisions that their characters would make and have those decisions be meaningful. If you refuse to understand that - which seems fairly evident by now - then there is no point in continuing this discussion.

I understand where you are coming from. Not knowing what an RPG is and trying to reduce them into boardgames.

The purpose of D&D's XP rules is to provide incentive for players to do what the game wants them to. In oD&D and 1e this was very clear - and was the whole purpose of the XP for GP rule - manipulating the players into the desired playstyle. It was far from an objective ruleset. By your definition oD&D and 1E were not RPGs.

As you are using your own almost unique definition of what an RPG is that excludes Gary Gygax's D&D then I think we can agree that there's no point continuing this conversation. You can invent your RPG Purity Tests all you like - but you aren't Humpty Dumpty. Words don't mean what you want them to if you pay them more - and if your definitions exclude the deliberate design intent of oD&D and 1e then they are objectively wrong.

 

[Maxperson]

"The ogres swings and misses!" *records 17 damage to the PC*

I'd have gone with something like, "The ogre swings at you and you see his club coming straight for your head. You bend backwards with all the skill you can muster and the club just misses you by a hair. Take 17 points of damage."

If a miss is going to be a hit, I think it should be described in a way that actually forces the PC into some sort of act to avoid it.

 

[ZzarkLinux]

That whole "yes, and..." mindset did not exist when 2E came out, so the designers didn't have to pander to that crowd.

I thought the "yes, and..." mantra was a staple of early editions.

Like in 1e:
DM: You enter the long hallway. On the wall you see a large carving of a green demon's face. The carving has a wide open mouth. Also, you find a small ornate box on the wall.
DM: What do you do?
Player: Can I climb into the mouth?
DM: Yes, and ... you're dead.

Or in 3e:
DM: You approach the gates of Waterdeep. There are some poor beggars on the side of the road, and a guard stands at the city gate.
DM: What do you do?
Player: I show my holy symbol and paperwork to the guard.
Player: Can I enter the city now?
DM: Yes, and ... you lose all your powers.

Sorry, I don't have any "yes, and ...." examples for 2e :-/
Any ideas?

EDIT: I'm an idiot.

2e example:
DM: In the room you find a two skeletons sitting at a table. On the table is a deck of cards, which appear to be magical.
DM: What do you do?
Player: I sit down next to the skeletons and attempt to play the game.
Player: Can I draw a handful of cards?
DM: Yes, and ... you are the target of a banishment spell.

Can you solve the riddle of the three "Yes,and" s ??

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Since it is not written, that makes it nothing more than a house rule of yours.

It is not a house rule, it is the meaning I take of the actual text in the books. I know you know the difference.

Right. Different ways

Yes.

but typically damage has no sign until 50%.

No, that's not what the text says.

Typically means 50%+.

That's inaccurate.

You are free to describe damage however you like within those constraints.

They are not constraints according to the text.

You just admitted to it above.

No, Max, I didn't. You claiming I did is intentionally mischaracterizing my statements, which I shouldn't have to ask you to stop doing.

Implications are not part of the rules.

You have an official source that explicitly says that, or is it just something you feel is implied?

Only rules are part of the rules, and no rule backs you up.

I am at least as backed up by the rules on this matter as you are.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I am entertained to see you admit that FATE is not a tabletop RPG.

Making an effort to overcome an inherent shortcoming of TTRPGs makes something 'not an RPG' in your book? I guess we can just add that to the list.

The point of an RPG ruleset is not to manipulate the emotional state of its players. An RPG ruleset exists to provide impartial adjudication, so that players can make the decisions that their characters would make and have those decisions be meaningful.

Y'know 'having fun' is an emotional state, right?

If you refuse to understand that - which seems fairly evident by now - then there is no point in continuing this discussion.

Heh.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I thought the "yes, and..." mantra was a staple of early editions.

As it is typically invoked, the "yes, and..." mantra involves the establishment of facts within the world.

For a normal game, if a PC wants to climb into the demon's mouth, then whether they can or not depends on a number of variables - how big the character is, how big the mouth is, relative elevations and angles, etc - that are not negotiable. The DM will say "yes" if the character can climb into the demon's mouth (because the character is a halfling, and the wall is easy to climb to that point), or "no" if the character cannot (if the character is an ogre, or can't get to the mouth for whatever reason). The consideration of the player doesn't factor into the DM's answer whatsoever.

In a "yes, and..." game, the DM is encouraged to say "yes", even if it involves changing the established facts of the setting in order to accommodate that. If the ogre PC wants to climb in, and the DM hasn't actually declared that the mouth is too small for the ogre to fit into, then the DM is supposed to change the reality in order so that the character can fit.

A common example, from every edition of D&D:
Player: Can I walk into the city, find a marketplace, and track down someone selling a silver weapon?
DM: No, the gates are barred and they aren't allowing outsiders in for some reason.

 

[Tony Vargas]

In a "yes, and..." game, the DM is encouraged to say "yes", even if it involves changing the established facts of the setting in order to accommodate that. If the ogre PC wants to climb in, and the DM hasn't actually declared that the mouth is too small for the ogre to fit into, then the DM is supposed to change the reality in order so that the character can fit.

If the DM hasn't actually declared a fact, it hasn't been established, so it's not being changed.