D&D 5E ludonarrative dissonance of hitpoints in D&D

[Arch-Fiend]

Well, since there are those 5 sub-classes, it is not validated.

It is an interesting variant though, especially if considered as a broader re-imagining of the game in which all PCs have parity in terms of supernatural powers and resources.

if hitpoints are completely arbitrary for the dm to simply decide what they mean at any time, then that alone validates any interpretation of what hitpoints are. but furthermore if only 5 subclasses in the game are the classes that dont have some supernatural abilities to them then that further validates the idea that super durability can easly side into the build of the game as it is. this is what im saying.

 

[Tony Vargas]

if hitpoints are completely arbitrary for the dm to simply decide what they mean at any time, then that alone validates any interpretation of what hitpoints are.

It merely means the DM is free to adopt such a variant.

The DM is also free to narrate hps as butterflies that escape when you are damaged or a glowing health bar over your head - that is equally valid as the "supernatural durability" or the old mockery of his as making your character increase in size.

If that's all the validation you want, you've always had it: so long as you stay on the DMs side of the screen.

if only 5 subclasses in the game dont have some supernatural abilities to them then that further validates the idea that super durability can easly side into the build of the game as it is. this is what im saying.

The word 'validates' may not mean what you think it means.

 

[FrogReaver]

if its people initial expectation of how the game works when they first get it and weve had a constant stream of people since the game was made in the 70s who need to be "corrected" about what hitpoints actually represent, i dont think its that different that what most people expect D&D to evoke.

It's a predictable pattern nearly every time.
Step 1. New Player: "D&D HP are meat and I'm happy with that"
Step 2. New Player: "Hey Enworld, hp are dumb and don't make any sense. No way my fighter can take 10 sword hits to his bare chest and live"
Step 3. New Player: "Oh you are saying that hp are just an abstraction and aren't actually meat, that's dumb"
Step 4.…. (Years later) New Player: "I've tried every other interpretation possible for hp to be meat and to not have bare chested fighters live through 10 longsword blows to the chest, the only sensible explanation is that hp are not meat all the time, but only a bit of meat when they need to be"

That's the basic pattern to this thing. It's a gradual state of nothing is every good enough that grows into gradual acceptance that hp are not (completely) meat.

i think D&D got a lot of critisism back in the day for not being realistic by a bunch of people who the makers of the game looked up to and subsiquiently tried to defend their game from by implying it is actually realistic.

There was other roleplaying being done back in the day - freeform stuff. If D&D couldn't at least evoke a semi realistic world then it may have never made it off the ground.

that being said it doesent invalidate the use of the system to be anything game masters and players want it to be. but i very much stand against the idea of correcting first impressions of the game unless those first impressions are unhelpful (example of an unhelpful first impression: "this game is dumb and for nerds"). which is why i back up the "hitpoints are supernatural durability" interpretation of the game and why i also dont think the game actually needs to change anything mechanically to fit that interpretation. do i think D&D needs to outright state that is the correct interpretation? no, though i do wish they would stop entertaining the idea that there is a correct one especially if that correct one is the one i argue against in my thesis. i would likewise argue if D&D wants to argue there is a correct interpretation of what hitpoints are, i think the best one for the most people is that hitpoints is durability because of how much semblance damage systems in the game have to our real world concept of body damage.

You really need to learn to be more concise. Anyways - the pattern I've referenced above is the reason to correct those first impressions.

ultimately im not going to make a meatpoint system of D&D because i already think it is a meatpoint system and i dont think you need to change a single thing about the game to see it that way, what i have done is made a homebrew when i stayed up to late talking to a guy randomly about his game and thought "you know this might work" and then i made a homebrew for a game i dont even play. but im proud of it atleast.

If you are happy with the fiction it evokes with your meat point interpretations then have at it.

 

[Arch-Fiend]

The word 'validates' may not mean what you think it means.

well definitively validation is a subjective quality but one that can be agreed on, my statements would imply that i think when that percentage of the game normally doesent have supernatural qualities associated with it then adding supernatural qualities to the idea of hitpoints which would expound onto those 5 sub-classes the traits of supernaturalism is a small change meaning the change fits easly into the game when that is the only factor we are measuring. thats my subjective opinion and reasoning for it

 

[FrogReaver]

i would likewise argue if D&D wants to argue there is a correct interpretation of what hitpoints are, i think the best one for the most people is that hitpoints is durability because of how much semblance damage systems in the game have to our real world concept of body damage.

Here's what the PHB says about damage types

"DAMAGE TYPES
Different attacks, damaging spells, and other harmful effects deal different types of damage. Damage types have no rules of their own, but other rules, such as damage resistance, rely on the types."

Essentially damage types don't matter unless there's some other rule referencing them that matters.

 

[Tony Vargas]

i think when that percentage of the game normally doesent have supernatural qualities associated with it then adding supernatural qualities to the idea of hitpoints which would expound onto those 5 sub-classes the traits of supernaturalism is a small change

The reaction to giving those sub-classes abilities that reach even a bit beyond the aggressively mundane tends to be very harsh.

Also, it's just a little weird that you whinged enough over the realism of armor to come up with a fairly neat simulation of D&D armor as both PD & DR (to channel GURPS for a moment), yet are also hot to throw realism to the winds by making the most basic of character stats overtly supernatural.

 

[Arch-Fiend]

It's a predictable pattern nearly every time.
Step 1. New Player: "D&D HP are meat and I'm happy with that"
Step 2. New Player: "Hey Enworld, hp are dumb and don't make any sense. No way my fighter can take 10 sword hits to his bare chest and live"
Step 3. New Player: "Oh you are saying that hp are just an abstraction and aren't actually meat, that's dumb"
Step 4.…. (Years later) New Player: "I've tried every other interpretation possible for hp to be meat and to not have bare chested fighters live through 10 longsword blows to the chest, the only sensible explanation is that hp are not meat all the time, but only a bit of meat when they need to be"

That's the basic pattern to this thing. It's a gradual state of nothing is every good enough that grows into gradual acceptance that hp are not (completely) meat.

thats not what ive experienced, ive not experinced people coming to me and telling me that hitpoints works any way i think it works, ive had people telling me that my interpretation is wrong and what the correct interpretation is. you and a few others who are still commenting here are the ones who concede theres no concrete narrative behind hitpoints (even if the game and the writers of the game disagree with us).

also step 4 is easly undone as ive described, supernatural durability. thats a far simpler explanation than "theres no good explanation, so theres no right explanation, so any explanation is valid" the reason any explanation is valid isint because supernatural durability doesent make any sense or is a hard step for anyone to make in the process of taking the first impressions of the game and creating a rationality to how those impressions arnt realistic. the reason is simply because a system with no answer is the best system for your answer.

also a complete logical fallacy to assume this is how it works for everyone because you actually have to accept anecdote as evidence to the contrary when your argument is based on the same idea of anecdote but over a longer period of time which is subject to confirmation bias.

 

[Arch-Fiend]

Here's what the PHB says about damage types

"DAMAGE TYPES
Different attacks, damaging spells, and other harmful effects deal different types of damage. Damage types have no rules of their own, but other rules, such as damage resistance, rely on the types."

Essentially damage types don't matter unless there's some other rule referencing them that matters.

im sure this is new information to someone, maybe one person on the entire forum, but i doubt they are looking at this thread

 

[Charlaquin]

I'd say that abstract HP don't create any single narrative.

My support is simple - if they did, on their own, create a single narrative, then, by now after decades, we'd all pretty much agree on that narrative. But we don't - we have this discussion of what HP are over and over, time and again.

I think it is more accurate to say that HP, and the various descriptions and mechanics that work with them, provide an inconsistent picture. Whichever elements of that picture a given player likes best, or finds more problematic, become the dominant one in that player's image of Hit Points. We wind up disagreeing about them so much specifically because they aren't any one thing. They are abstract enough that they allow a number of narratives, none of which fit perfectly.

I, personally, am okay with that. For D&D, it works well enough.

That’s a good point. I guess by “the narrative created by abstract HP” I mean “the narrative explanation of abstract HP that makes sense to me”

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I'm surprised this is still being debated in 2019.

Obviously, unarguably, there is a significant ludonarrative dissonance created by HP. I saw in my game on Saturday, just like I saw it in 1989. Often it becomes a non-issue for weeks or months at a time, yet other sessions it keeps popping up. But it's a Sacred Cow. It's not going to be changed or sacrificed now, because it's part of what makes D&D, D&D. People denying that it creates an issue are being very silly, frankly.

I mean, it's a totally solvable problem, too - as was shown by the Star Wars d20 RPG way back in 2000. All you need to do is separate things out into VP and WP or something similar. You have the VP ablated without any real injury, and the WP for when real injury occurs. You'd need to modify some rules in D&D, and a lot of spells, to reflect this, I mean really it would need a new edition to be done well, but it could be done, if it mattered that much.

But it doesn't matter that much. Not because, as some people rather risibly claim, it isn't happening, or isn't an issue, but simply because it isn't enough of an issue to overcome the fact that it's a simple mechanic that works well in most situations, and is also a Sacred Cow.