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

[pemerton]

In case it's not clear - when I play D&D I generally don't sweat too much about hp, but when I do think about them I think of them as a measure of resilience in the face of threats to life and (sometimes) sanity. (The second conjunct is there mostly in relation to psychic damage.) Depletion of hp is the wearing down of resilience; the restoration of hp is the retoration of resilience, whether by physical healing or (more often, in my preferred version of D&D) by the restoration of morale and vigour.

One way to have greater resilience in the face of these threats is to have greater durability. Another is to have greater courage or willingness to go on. So while I agree with @Arch-Fiend that hp are an abstraction, I think I adopt a different view as to what the abstraction is concerned with.

I don't think it's all that important to debate who is right about that. If I turn from 4e to Gygax there is mention (in the DMG, pp 82, 111-12) of "the actual physical ability . . . to withstand damage", "skill in combat . . . [and] the 'sixth sense' which warns the individual of some otherwise unforeseen events" and "luck", "magical protections", "divine protection" and "the aid provided by supernatural forces". Nothing there goes as far as 4e in supporting a morale/vigour/resilience approach. The focus seems to be on skilled and/or lucky avoidance plus magical wardings that result in potentially terrible blows falling only lightly on the character.

If I can handle 4e's resilience approach, and Gygax's defness and good fortune approach, I'm sure I can cope with Arch-Fiend favouring a durability approach. I don't agree with Arch-Fiend that a durability approach does better than those other approaches in avoiding "ludonarrative dissonance" caused by damage types and CON affecting hit points. Gygax's DMG tells me that CON represents "physique, health, resistance, and fitness" (p 15) and that seems to allow for high CON aiding resilience and deftness just as it would aid durability. It's true that there's an overlap with AC, but that applies equally to durability (because wearing armour makes a person more durable). D&D has never been shy of having multiple mechanical systems overlap in respect of the details of the fiction that they pertain to.

 

[Arch-Fiend]

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.

your arguing the definition of abstract inproperly because an abstract by definition is a representation of a group of specific things and expanded into a broader catagory for use in conversation about what they represent for the purpose of that abstract. for example a polystirine soccer ball full of air is a ball, the abstract would be talking about balls and that abstract would still be in reference to the soccer ball but also balls in general if the conversation can be applied to balls in general.
so because your arguing with a false interpritation of a definition i will try to counter your point by interpriting what i think you are trying to say.

hitpoints are not defined purely as an abstract in any edition of the game, they are an abstract by definition. what hitpoints are defined as in 5e for example is the following

Hit points represent a combination of physical and mental durability, the will to live, and luck. Creatures with more hit points are more difficult to kill. Those with fewer hit points are more fragile. A creature’s current hit points (usually just called hit points) can be any number from the creature’s hit point maximum down to 0. This number changes frequently as a creature takes damage or receives healing. Whenever a creature takes damage, that damage is subtracted from its hit points. The loss of hit points has no effect on a creature’s capabilities until the creature drops to 0 hit points.

this outlines a number of qualities that hitpoints represents, it does not specify their quantity it allows the dm to interpret them on their own for the use of narration in play when it becomes important. conflating hitpoints as an abstract measure of SOMETHING (that something being different between me and the game writers and most of the people complaining to me that i dont understand hitpoints) and hitpoints as a zero representation stand in for dm narration would be an invalid logical argument, but i havent done that, because no one is saying hitpoints represent nothing but interpretation, people and the game itself are saying hitpoints represent an abstraction of several qualities that relate to whatever damage means.

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.

we really havent been arguing what is ridiculous or not in this thread, at least i havent, because i dont care, my initial post here was about comparing the different narratives the mechanics of the game seem to represent and how there is a conflict between those narratives, for some reason were not talking about that anymore and for the life of me i have no idea why. i dont see why its so ridiculous that in a game about dragons, magic, divine intervention, alternate planes of existence, psionic powers, ect, that characters who gain the ability to die slower to being hit by attacks is what stands out and breaks the camels back. the only thing i can think of is thats just not how various people here want to play the game, its a good thing im not telling them they have to do it my way or no way.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

 

[Doug McCrae]

My biggest problem with hit points as a player arises when my PC is low on hit points but the party healer hasn't noticed. How can my character within the game world draw the healer's attention to this fact if hit points represent skill, luck or divine favour? My PC couldn't know they are low on these things.

Hit points as meat doesn't solve this problem either though because the lack of combat penalties suggest all wounds are flesh wounds until zero hit points are reached.

Hit points are a dissociated mechanic in the sense that the player knows something important that their PC doesn't.

 

[Arch-Fiend]

i think necrotic and psychic damage in 5e might be the only 2 instances in the entire game where damage argues with my personal interpretation of hitpoints. radiant is close but its also considered to still act like a burn to living tissue. necrotic is damage to the soul, psychic is damage to the mind. im not actually sure why no one has yet pointed to these and said "look arch these 2 dont agree with your narrative so hitpoints must represent something more that just physical durability. my response to that would have to concede that my 100% durability argument would be invalid. so take this as me throwing a bone to everyone.

HOWEVER, i do want to remind everyone here that the post i made at the beginning of this thread has nothing to do with my personal interpretation of hitpoints and every point ive made in that thesis is valid in the context of what it is actually talking about.

 

[Arch-Fiend]

My biggest problem with hit points as a player arises when my PC is low on hit points but the party healer hasn't noticed. How can my character within the game world draw the healer's attention to this fact if hit points represent skill, luck or divine favour? My PC couldn't know they are low on these things.

Hit points as meat doesn't solve this problem either though because the lack of combat penalties suggest all wounds are flesh wounds until zero hit points are reached.

Hit points are a dissociated mechanic in the sense that the player knows something important that their PC doesn't.

correct, however that would be the idea that hitpoints as duribility when being impacted with physical damage is a representation realistic durability. ive admitted since the moment i began talking about the idea of supernatural durability thus far that it isint realistic, i can try to come up with a few explanations as to how it might work so that you dont suffer penalties due to a damaged body such as it being a representation of regeneration, but then id be describing 2 different regeneration in the game, though hitpoints do regenerate over time. humans in reality and characters in D&D do actually have slow regeneration, living things could not heal naturally otherwise, however we dont have complex regeneration such as a gecko or troll has.

all that aside, you raise a valid point. and i think with regard to meat your point reflects the perspective of a lot of people here who have argued that such a system is better handled in other games. however theres advantages in playing D&D and i like those advantages, but they dont make sense from a realistic perspective of hitpoints as natural durability. giant monsters and stuff can better be explained with natural durability obviously but the crux of your argument stands

 

[DND_Reborn]

i think necrotic and psychic damage in 5e might be the only 2 instances in the entire game where damage argues with my personal interpretation of hitpoints. radiant is close but its also considered to still act like a burn to living tissue. necrotic is damage to the soul, psychic is damage to the mind. im not actually sure why no one has yet pointed to these and said "look arch these 2 dont agree with your narrative so hitpoints must represent something more that just physical durability. my response to that would have to concede that my 100% durability argument would be invalid. so take this as me throwing a bone to everyone.

HOWEVER, i do want to remind everyone here that the post i made at the beginning of this thread has nothing to do with my personal interpretation of hitpoints and every point ive made in that thesis is valid in the context of what it is actually talking about.

Psychic damage to the brain could manifest physically as migraines, nosebleeds, etc.

I always imagines the physical manifestation of necrotic as a withering of the skin, cracking and such, maybe even like a rotting effect. I don't consider it damage to the "soul" so much.

 

[Arch-Fiend]

Psychic damage to the brain could manifest physically as migraines, nosebleeds, etc.

I always imagines the physical manifestation of necrotic as a withering of the skin, cracking and such, maybe even like a rotting effect. I don't consider it damage to the "soul" so much.

fair enough, i think now if i remember it correctly i said something similar about necrotic damage in my thesis about killing cells in the body, that could still be a representation of damage to the soul but just in those areas, or it could be something like adding negative energy to the body in those areas turning that part of your body undead. there's a few ways of thinking of it and necrotic damage probably doesent always act the same way depending on its source.

 

[Garthanos]

D&D has never been shy of having multiple mechanical systems overlap in respect of the details of the fiction that they pertain to.

Contributing to the ambiguity of the abstractions ...

 

[Garthanos]

Psychic damage to the brain could manifest physically as migraines, nosebleeds, etc.

I always imagines the physical manifestation of necrotic as a withering of the skin, cracking and such, maybe even like a rotting effect. I don't consider it damage to the "soul" so much.

No life force things going on those are tougher to see. I might see necrotic as somewhat like poisonous see the damage of Frodo from the Nazgul blade in the Lord of the rings movie. I like your visualizations. I really wish 4e had followed through on afflictions.

 

[Garthanos]

fair enough, i think now if i remember it correctly i said something similar about necrotic damage in my thesis about killing cells in the body, that could still be a representation of damage to the soul but just in those areas, or it could be something like adding negative energy to the body in those areas turning that part of your body undead. there's a few ways of thinking of it and necrotic damage probably doesent always act the same way depending on its source.

Localized necrotic effects? makes me think of Partial Stoning attacks heroically shrugged off (most of the time) but starting the process never the less.