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

[FrogReaver]

Aren't damage types meant to correlate to the fiction? Eg if something does piercing damage that means it is a threat primarily because it can stab you. If it does fire damage that means that it is a threat primarily because it can burn you. Etc.

If someone wrote up a description of a club that does piercing damage, or a refrigerator trap that inflicts fire damage, I don't know if that would literally count as a rules violation but it would clearly show the person doesn't understand the function of damage types in the game. Their function is not limited to triggering resistance and vulnerability.

You don’t need a mechanic to fictionally tell you that arrows pierce clubs bludgeon and swords slash.

 

[FrogReaver]

When I Google a definition of abstract I get this: "existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical or concrete existence."

That doesn't establish any contrast with being defined nor with being consistently one thing. Hit points as durability is still an abstract conception of hit points, because durability is an abstract notion - actual concrete human beings don't have any property of durability but rather have various physical and biological properties like bones with a certain degree of strength, tendons with a certain degree of flexibility, cells that rupture in various ways and muscular and other systems that cope with certain degrees of rupture within them, etc.

Then we disagree. Something defined as one thing is concrete.

 

[jasper]

Let's note something - this is the same abstraction the game has worked with since the 1970s. Four decades of it. And it is still by far the strongest selling RPG in the world.

If folks are left in a sea of abstraction... apparently, they learn how to swim or sail.

Or the drown in the sea of despair. Forever doomed to play Candyland with their younger kin folk. Forever doomed to play a broken copy of Doom. Forever doomed to console games with bad lag. Forever doomed to play 52 card pick up with only a 51 card deck. Forever doomed to play KerPlunk with some missing marbles. Forever doomed to watch Hocus pocus with the sound turned off.
Forever Doomed to watch Dr Who where the sound track drowns out the actors voices
Forever doomed.
Forever doomed

 

[Arch-Fiend]

Then we disagree. Something defined as one thing is concrete.

you might disagree but hes not wrong, pemerton is describing how hitpoints as pure durability can still be considered an abstract because pure durability is an abstraction of all the physical qualities of a living thing's body which can resist physical injury. a medical doctor would very much argue this is an accurate usage of the term abstraction. however, this abstraction is more limited than the one you want D&D to use, and more limited than the one D&D actually uses, but just the same that does not mean we have not the right to criticize the broad abstraction that D&D uses and the one you use. especially when you tell us that anything otherwise doesent fit with the definition of abstract, because there you are by definition wrong.

pemerton is even better at arguing this than me, i should have never budged .infinity of zeros before a 1 after this decibel point percent from my position but that was also to basically argue the point that even a broader abstract which does not describe its proportions fails to eliminate the option of one element dominating all others into irrelevancy

 

[Garthanos]

pemerton is even better at arguing this than me

Definitely a feature

 

[Ovinomancer]

When I Google a definition of abstract I get this: "existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical or concrete existence."

That doesn't establish any contrast with being defined nor with being consistently one thing. Hit points as durability is still an abstract conception of hit points, because durability is an abstract notion - actual concrete human beings don't have any property of durability but rather have various physical and biological properties like bones with a certain degree of strength, tendons with a certain degree of flexibility, cells that rupture in various ways and muscular and other systems that cope with certain degrees of rupture within them, etc.

If you're going to argue by definition, do try to do more than take the first entry off dictionary.com in the google preview. It's not a very good dictionary, being very simple, and is suitable maybe as a learning aid but not very useful for nuanced or advanced discussion.

Try Merriam Webster. It's also limited, but less so than dictionary.com. it has entries applicable to this discussion.

 

[pemerton]

You don’t need a mechanic to fictionally tell you that arrows pierce clubs bludgeon and swords slash.

This is true. It describes such RPGs as Moldvay Basic, Burning Wheel and Over the Edge.

But when the game includes a damage type mechanic like 5e does, then one of the key functions of that mechanic is to link damage types, as a collection of mechanical categories, to the fiction.

Then we disagree. Something defined as one thing is concrete.

A frictionless plane is defined as one thing. But it's not concrete. No frictionless plane actually exists in physical reality. The notion of a frictionless plane is an abstract one, intended to support fruitful simplifications and approximations in the study of kinematics.

 

[Arch-Fiend]

pemertons source might be poor but his logic is sound, how about wikipedia? Abstraction - Wikipedia

or is this going to be one of those arguments where the source is never good until it agrees with you? ill be surprised though if anyone can find a definition that really changes the argument pemerton made or the argument that i made.

 

[pemerton]

If you're going to argue by definition, do try to do more than take the first entry off dictionary.com in the google preview. It's not a very good dictionary, being very simple, and is suitable maybe as a learning aid but not very useful for nuanced or advanced discussion.

Try Merriam Webster. It's also limited, but less so than dictionary.com. it has entries applicable to this discussion.

I'll use the OED. It gives me the following relevant options:

* Of a word: denoting an idea, quality, or state rather than a concrete object . . . Opposed to concrete.

* Existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical or concrete existence; conceptual. Frequently opposed to concrete.

* Considered or understood without reference to particular instances or concrete examples; representing the intrinsic, general properties of something in isolation from the peculiar properties of any specific instance or example;

* Not restricted to particular instances or concerned with the details of specific examples; dealing with or describing things at a general level, or in terms of concepts which denote general properties; theoretical.

* An abstract term or concept; an abstraction . . . Frequently opposed to concrete.

Nothing there is at odds with my earlier post. The notion of hit points as durability is an abstract notion of hit points, because durability is an asbtract concept, that does not make reference to particular instances or concrete examples (such as bone strength, soft tissue flexibility, cell rupture and all the other concrete biological phenomena that are actually in play when a person is hurt or threatened with hurt).

There's no meaning of abstract that makes Gygax's account of hp, or @Tony Vargas's account of hp, abstract but makes a durability account not abstract. If someone was to assert that, in D&D, humans have an (imaginary) concrete property of structural resilience and that hp measure that property, maybe that would count as a non-abstract account of hp. There are some posters on these forums who assert that, or something like it (eg @Saelorn), but if @Arch-Fiend has asserted that then I didn't pick it up.

Even in RQ, where hp are "meat", hp are still abstract because they are used to measure everything from concussion-causing blows to the head to maiming and decapitating blows to limbs. At the moment the only RPG I can think of that uses a hp-type mechanism but has them as largely non-abstract is Rolemaster, where concussion hits measure bruising, blood loss and associated pain. In that system the things that hp measure in RQ and that they would measure on a durability account are handled via specific condition infliction, mediated mechanically via critical charts.

 

[Ovinomancer]

pemertons source might be poor but his logic is sound, how about wikipedia? Abstraction - Wikipedia

or is this going to be one of those arguments where the source is never good until it agrees with you? ill be surprised though if anyone can find a definition that really changes the argument pemerton made or the argument that i made.

There is a difference between saying that hitpoints are an abstract measure of meat and saying hitpoints are abstract, though. Conflating the two statements isn't a valid logical argument. That's what seems to be happening -- you wanted to negate the abstraction argument so you crafted a similar looking statement and have claimed equivalence. They aren't equivalent, though. Others have done similar sleight-of-argument in this thread, so you aren't alone.

Fundamentally, if you insist that hitpoints are always, or even mostly, meat, then the fictional outcomes of 5e become ridiculous even as they function mechanically. If you instead treat hitpoints as a abstraction with a broader base than just meat (luck, skill, effort, etc.), then a lot of that ridiculousness falls out. You've chosen to instead hold to the notion of hp as meat and go down the path of increasingly complex house rules to solve the ridiculous problem. That's valid, but it is your choice of interpretation, not a logical outcome of RAW. Stick to presenting it as a preference rather than the question begging arguments you've provided trying to present it as a fait accompli if RAW and you'll find better traction for your suggestions.

And, for goodness sakes, fix your shift key! We can probably do a whip-around if you need help.