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

[FrogReaver]

This all makes me picture an hourglass.

Sand, running down from the top portion through a bottleneck to a lower portion. Altogether, it takes one hour for all the sand to empty out of the top portion and collect at the bottom.

But no two grains of sand are exactly alike. So no two grains of sand are ever worth the same exact amount of time. Even those that are bigger and heavier, that we might expect to fall first, must wait their turn to be filtered through the bottleneck.

And yet we’ve never bothered looking at the hourglass and concluding “we’ll this is poorly designed nonsense! The grains of sand should all be precisely alike and should all correspond to the same precise fraction of one hour!” And while we’ve definitely iterated in the design (waterclock, sundial, mechanical watch, atomic clock, etc, etc.), we’ve all accepted an hourglass as “Yeah that’s basically an hour, and a second or two here or there doesn’t really matter.”

If that second or two really did matter, we wouldn’t use the hourglass.

I feel like hit points are in a similar situation. No two hit points are ever alike, and they never represent the same amount of luck, endurance, life, blood, stamina, grit or whatever. They’re not consistent across characters, across instances of damage sustained, and they’re not even valued equally. That last hit point lost is a million times more valuable than the first one lost. And when it’s gone, well, your time’s up.

Functionally, an hourglass and hit points are about the same: good enough for what we’re doing with them.

Well said!

 

[Arch-Fiend]

Not my definition of that term. Concrete narrative would simply mean that something has been established in the fiction. Nothing more IMO.

yeah so im also talking about whats established in the fiction then, the fiction of the RAW and im challenging it saying "either claim a standard that is more interpretive or dont claim a standard at all like how all my friends on enworld (except the ones who tell me im wrong about how hitpoints work) say hitpoints work

So question. Do you think new players start playing the game under the assumption that their character has supernatural durability? I don't.

So in either case you are having to change something about how a new player naturally interprets the game. Why do you think changing their interpretation about hp being supernatural durability is better than changing their interpretation about the fictional meaning of damage being ambiguous until the DM declares it as something that makes sense in the fiction?

no i dont think they start under the impression of super durability, its kinda obvious by reading what ive said. ive said that the interpretation of supernatural durability reinforces the initial interpretation of hitpoints and damage not that the initial interpretations of hitpoints and damage reinforces supernatural durability hitpoints.

mostly i think changing it from their initial interpretation into supernatural durability prevents the part you said with your typical pattern of several years between you telling them how it can be and how they actually decide it can be. it also means that other interpretations with greater ludonarrative dissonance dont sneak into the conversation because a really popular youtuber shares them and the guy who made the game said it worked that way and now everyones saying thats how it works except those who say theres no right way and me who says i have a preferred way but respect pure abstraction.

 

[Tony Vargas]

This all makes me picture an hourglass.

“Like sands through the hourglass, so are the dayshps of our lives.”

 

[FrogReaver]

no i dont think they start under the impression of super durability, its kinda obvious by reading what ive said. ive said that the interpretation of supernatural durability reinforces the initial interpretation of hitpoints and damage not that the initial interpretations of hitpoints and damage reinforces supernatural durability hitpoints.

So more pointedly - why do you insist they keep their natural initial interpretation of damage but change their initial interpretation of what hp means?

Isn't it just as equal to insist they keep viewing hp the same way and change their initial interpretation of what damage means?

Do you not see the hypocrisy present in arguing that you are fighting for new players when your preferred interpretation forces them to do the same kind of thing that the interpretation you are criticizing forces them to do?

mostly i think changing it from their initial interpretation into supernatural durability prevents the part you said with your typical pattern of several years between you telling them how it can be and how they actually decide it can be.

I think your supernatural durability interpretation will ruin the game for them.

it also means that other interpretations with greater ludonarrative dissonance dont sneak into the conversation because a really popular youtuber shares them and the guy who made the game said it worked that way and now everyones saying thats how it works except those who say theres no right way and me who says i have a preferred way but respect pure abstraction.

I don't know the full context here but the description you gave sounded like a good explanation of how abstract hp can work-most-of-the-time while not being full-meat (which is really the part that needs explained for most people).

 

[FrogReaver]

I think there's a bit of a disconnect.

Abstract hp is an hp interpretation that doesn't support hp as all meat. Why? Because there is nothing abstract about hp always being meat. There's no moment in time decision where the DM weighs what's going on and picks the most appropriate meaning for hp at that moment. Always meat fully removes the abstract part.

 

[Arch-Fiend]

So more pointedly - why do you insist they keep their natural initial interpretation of damage but change their initial interpretation of what hp means?

Isn't it just as equal to insist they keep viewing hp the same way and change their initial interpretation of what damage means?

Do you not see the hypocrisy present in arguing that you are fighting for new players when your preferred interpretation forces them to do the same thing that the interpretation you are criticizing forces them to do?

this is a strong point, at least where you point out that if i was advocating for everyone to go around and inspire new players to think of the game the way i do. but thats not really what ive been arguing.

what ive advocated for is an ultimatum, either dungeons and dragons changes its standard for what hitpoints represents (or maybe denounce the idea thats spreading that hitpoints only represent the idea of endurance expended to avoid a lethal attack) or simply take the best course of action and drive home that hitpoints are meant to be a completely abstract system that could mean any number of things at any given time depending on the dm's narration.

ultimately a fruitless endever to be sure but its my principle for the most part rather than my plan, and its my defense against those who would say im simply wrong for making homebrew that doesent take the official interpretation of the game into account. im fine with anyone pointing out how it doesent fit multiple interpretations, i dislike the idea theres a correct way when whats advocated for is worse than my own flawed interpretation, and if your going to ask what makes theirs worse, ill redirect you to the first post i made.

I think your supernatural durability interpretation will ruin the game for them.

ruins the game is a strong strong argument and blanketing when you consider your applying it to everyone im going to assume your thinking emotionally from your own bias rather than considering what ive said describes a short path between what players initially think the way the game works, as hitpoints are resistance to physical damage, and then solving the problem of it not actually being realistic by simply admitting its not and that their characters are superhuman. thats a very short jump in logic than "the reason hitpoints dont make sense from your interpretation is that hitpoints simply exist as a mechanic for the dm to create their own interpretation from, there is no right answer but whatever answer you want it to be"

I don't know the full context here but it the description you gave sounded like a good explanation of how abstract hp can work while not being meat (which is really the part that needs explained for most people).

any explanation for how abstract hitpoints can work, the problem is when that explanation is given from the perspective of authority without further explanation that the interpretation given by how abstract hitpoints can be done is actually about abstract hitpoints. i realize what i just said might be a hard to follow but basicly what im saying is that if the explanation doesent specify that its talking about an abstract system then its going to sound like its not even if it can fit in to an abstract system. ultimately my problem with this authoritative narrative is that it is is further off the mark than even the initial perspective that people usually have about hitpoints and damage in D&D. its an attempt to explain how it can work, and makes sense if you dont ask questions like "but then why do weapons have different types of damage?", but does not easly reflect the intuitive.

 

[ccs]

and i'm only arguing for my interpretation of hit points to be the standard if WotC insists on a standard existing.

That's nice.
But guess what? I'm the DM. That makes MY interpretation the standard in games I run.
Not Wizards standard, not TSRs, not some game designer, not even Gygax's. And certainly not that of some internet rando. Maybe I'll take the opinions of my group into account.

And in the precious instances when I get to be just a player? Then the only interpretation that matters is that of whomever is DMing.
They want to say HP = all meat? OK. Some sort of abstraction? OK. They want to call it super durability or such? OK. They want to split it up into assorted pools of meat/luck/plot armor/hit locations/etc? Well, I think that's making it more complex than needed, but OK....

Truth be told? HP are a really simple concept no matter how you want to describe them. Whatever they represent, the more you have, the further away from unconscious/dying/dead you are. You reach 0 or less? Then you've got a problem. End of story. Doesn't matter what description you wrap it up in. Or why.

if WotC will stop arguing that there's a correct interpretation of hit points then ill stop having people tell me that i'm wrong about hit points and ill start having people simply tell me "this doesn't work with every interpretation of hit points but works if your doing hit points as durability"

Are you the DM? If so simply inform them the proper order of things: DMs interpretation > everyone elses.
If you're not the DM, point out the proper order of things: Your DMs interpretation > everyone elses.

 

[Tony Vargas]

makes sense if you dont ask questions like "but then why do weapons have different types of damage?",

I'm sorry, but that was asked and answered early on.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

So no dissonance, but no doubt a lot more gritty and a lot more complex than most of us actually want to deal with.

I haven't played ROS but I suspect it still has dissonant situations, just less commonly. I've played games with similar ideas and mechanics, and a lot of them did a good job but sooner or later something to do with injury always got weird.

 

[Lanefan]

additionally there's no explanation for how poison can be transmitted by injury if technically you cant be injured until you run out of hitpoints. nor does it explain how the hitpoints that poison drains from you as it kills you is drawn from the same source as the metaphysical force of damage possibility reducing your characters endurance.

And this is why most* poisons, like some other things, really ought to bypass hit points completely and go straight to their secondary effects, whatever those may be for that particular situation...on a failed save, of course.

* - the exception, of course, being those that simply do nothing but cause more pain. But poisons that put you to sleep, or paralyze you, or stun you, or cause you to retch and vomit uncontrollably, or just flat-out kill you, should all ignore hit points completely and just get straight to doing what they do.

But yes, for poison to be transmitted by injury there has to be an injury inflicted, be it as simple as a scratch.