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

[clearstream]

ludonarrative dissonance is the conflict between a game's narrative told through the story and the narrative told through the gameplay. now this might seem like an odd thing to consider when discussing rules, however the rules of D&D are representations of a narrative that exists within playing the game

One question is whether it is right to envision such dualism? We do often read accounts that talk about it as something that is happening, and yet when we play we are engaged perhaps in a unified activity. A kind of rule-following acted narrative. I think cannot imagine that RPG play instances two separate universes, the first containing the story and the second containing the gameplay. Instead, there is one universe in which occurs a weave of story-game activity.

To talk about a conflict then is maybe more to talk about what is entailed by the rules, versus what people say is entailed by the rules. This is not a ludo-narrative dissonance, but rather an analytical one: the claim would be that people are making a mistake in what they say the rules are doing, because looked at objectively the rules entail something concretely otherwise. That does often occur: my point is only that the idea of ludo-narrative dissonance isn't the right lense to look at it. The fault occurs in analytical claims about what the rules entail... i.e. that they fall short of capturing what the rules analysed more carefully do entail.

as the rules specify that hit points is an abstraction of a characters effort of taking a damaging blow and turning it into a near miss. that is the narrative the game is telling you, but is it the narrative that the mechanics of the game actually express?

PHB196 has "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." PHB12 has "Your character’s hit points define how tough your character is in combat and other dangerous situations." DMG248 has "...if a monster is below half its hit point maximum, it's fair to say that it has visible wounds and appears beaten down."

What is described is that hit points are heterogeneous. And seeing as characters function mechanically unimpeded while hit points are positive, the rules in that regard sustain the above descriptions. That said, I like your argument that for damage types to matter, it might seem as though any hit point loss must be corporeal. Which I think goes in the opposite direction: it implicitly claims that hit points are homogeneous... all one substance.

we run into a different problem, how can different creatures be resistant, vulnerable or even immune to these damages? are they just good/bad at avoiding them? or is it some property of their body that resists it or is effected by it worse than other bodies. when including resistance to elemental damage, elemental damage seem less like a toll on endurance and more a toll on ones body

I think this comes from what I'll dub a simulationist or realist stance. One might feel that it's more plausible that for resistance to fire to matter, the fire must reach the body because that would chime better with one's knowledge of the real world. One could resist that feeling by taking a fabulist stance: hit points are a chimera that describes whatever is necessary to be described to facilitate play. Resistance to fire may then include a propensity to get out of fire's way.

 

[FrogReaver]

Well, no, that's not what abstraction means. You cannot logically argue from the specific to the general, only from the general to the specific. To take your example, the abstract category of "all balls" allows for soccer balls to exist in the category. The abstract category of "soccer balls" does not allow for tennis balls to exist in the category. So, when I pointed out that you've created a narrower set of abstraction for hitpoints, specifically that hitpoints are abstract representations of meat, this is not the same set of things that hitpoints generally represents -- you cannot logically equate the two, they are different things.


And, now you're misusing abstract. Hitpoints are definitely purely abstract in that the do not represent anything specific, they lack factual meaning. There are traits of abstractions, though, and D&D in general uses a wider set of traits for the abstraction of hitpoints that you use in your argument. The point I'm making here that that you claiming that "all meat" is an equal abstraction to the definition you quoted above is logically flawed -- they are different things.

Thank you for saying what I have been trying to say and in hindsight doing so incorrectly.

HP = meat are abstract because meat simply means some undefined physical harm which can take many forms and it's that potential for the hp loss to take many different forms that make HP = meat abstract.

HP = abstraction is abstract because there are a variety of fictional effects which represent the loss of hp. If one makes hp be meat then one loses this kind of abstraction - even though hp = meat is a different type of abstraction. It's this kind of abstraction that I mean when I say HP = abstraction and it's also the same meaning rules of the game adopts.

 

[Lanefan]

What is a "slashing club" but a sword?

A "slashing club" is something hypothetical, non-edged and completely blunt, that somehow still does slashing damage because [silly reasons].

Anyway, I don't think I know what a "mechanics-only DM" is. I think it's largely accepted that part of what distinguishes a RPG from a boardgame is that the former takes narrative/fiction as input, and yields the same as output, in way that a boardgame does not.

In theory yes. A mechanics-only DM, however, puts mechanics first and foremost and lets the narrative (such as it may be) take care of itself.

Put another way, playing under a mechanics-only DM would be very much like playing a glorified boardgame, and not a game I suspect either of us would want to play. That said, a mechanics-only DM is freed from the bounds of worrying about narrative or fictional sense when playing around with rules and effects.

 

[FrogReaver]

A "slashing club" is something hypothetical, non-edged and completely blunt, that somehow still does slashing damage because [silly reasons].

In theory yes. A mechanics-only DM, however, puts mechanics first and foremost and lets the narrative (such as it may be) take care of itself.

Put another way, playing under a mechanics-only DM would be very much like playing a glorified boardgame, and not a game I suspect either of us would want to play. That said, a mechanics-only DM is freed from the bounds of worrying about narrative or fictional sense when playing around with rules and effects.

They were the ones arguing you could dual wield hand crossbows

 

[Lanefan]

... an animated pile of hamburger ...

Isn't that just long words for 'cow'?

 

[Lanefan]

They were the ones arguing you could dual wield hand crossbows

There's no reason you can't, provided you're using them as clubbing weapons after one shot each; as there's no way in hell you can reload those suckers with both hands full.

 

[FrogReaver]

There's no reason you can't, provided you're using them as clubbing weapons after one shot each; as there's no way in hell you can reload those suckers with both hands full.

That's what she said?

 

[Arch-Fiend]

Well, no, that's not what abstraction means. You cannot logically argue from the specific to the general, only from the general to the specific. To take your example, the abstract category of "all balls" allows for soccer balls to exist in the category. The abstract category of "soccer balls" does not allow for tennis balls to exist in the category. So, when I pointed out that you've created a narrower set of abstraction for hitpoints, specifically that hitpoints are abstract representations of meat, this is not the same set of things that hitpoints generally represents -- you cannot logically equate the two, they are different things.

Abstraction - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

abstraction in its main sense is a conceptual process where general rules and concepts are derived from the usage and classification of specific examples, literal (real or concrete) signifies, first principles or other methods.

"an abstraction" is the outcome of this process, a concept that acts as a common noun for all subordinate concepts, and connects any related concepts as a group field, or category.

this is the definition of abstraction, which is what i said abstraction means, so yes an abstraction about balls is an abstraction that includes soccer balls, it is assumed that when an abstraction about balls is used then if its use is correct it can always be applied to soccer balls, otherwise the use of the abstraction of balls is an improper use because the abstraction is to general for the use where a specific that fits into the abstraction would fit better.

so how does it relate to hitpoints? hitpoints is an abstraction, a concept that acts as a common noun for all subordinate concepts and connects any related concepts as a group field, or category, what subordinate concepts do hitpoints act as a common noun for and what related concepts does hitpoints connect those subordinate concepts to as a group field?

the subordinate concepts of hitpoints and the related concepts that hitpoints connects these subordinate concepts to as outlined by its definition in the srd (Damage and Healing :: 5e.d20srd.org) are as follows (subordinate concepts highlighted in bold related concepts highlighted in underline)

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.

so how does this relate to what you think about my statement? i haven't conflated the idea that hitpoints as an abstraction is the same thing as physical durability as an abstraction, what ive done is argued that because hitpoints does not argue to what extent physical durability is a subordinate concept to hitpoints and thus as a dm whom the entire purpose of hitpoints as an abstraction is ment to serve as a tool for narrative, i have a valid use of the concept of hitpoints to be any measure of physical durability when compared to the other subordinate concepts of hitpoints.

furthermore my entire thesis argument is arguing that the related concepts in the game which hitpoints connects physical and mental durability, the will to live, and luck represent physical durability almost exclusively because of hitpoints relationship with damage as a related concept, and specifically within the further narrow interpretation of damage a character takes in the form of injury. this is because the subordination concepts to hitpoints abstraction are not the only qualifications which dictate hitpoints best use as an abstraction, the related concepts that hitpoints connects its subordinate concepts to give context to how specific the abstraction should be, and that's my argument.

And, now you're misusing abstract. Hitpoints are definitely purely abstract in that the do not represent anything specific, they lack factual meaning. There are traits of abstractions, though, and D&D in general uses a wider set of traits for the abstraction of hitpoints that you use in your argument. The point I'm making here that that you claiming that "all meat" is an equal abstraction to the definition you quoted above is logically flawed -- they are different things.

except the definition the game gives for what hitpoints are and what they do disagrees with your assertion that they are purely abstract in that they do not represent anything specific, and if they were purely abstract and do not represent anything specific then i would be correct to use any method of specifying what they represent that i as a gm want to.

and its weird that you make this specific argument ive even highlighted in bold exactly what im talking about you saying because i also underlined you saying something that completely refutes your argument which you say not more than a sentence later. you can NOT have purely abstract, do not represent anything specifically, and lack factual meaning and still have traits of abstractions at the same time, traits of abstractions would imply meaning otherwise they wouldn't be there.

all meat would not be an equal abstraction, but because the quantities of the abstraction arnt given then any quantity of meat i want i can have as a gm while being consistent to the idea of what the dominant concept of hitpoints is. regardless of what other subordinate concepts exist within the abstraction of hitpoints, meat is in there, and without defined quantities it can be any quantity less than 100%.

If the difference wasn't ridiculous to you, you'd not have bothered discussing it. There are many such differences in D&D that are often elided over because the disruption they cause to our imaginings of the fiction are not large enough. When it gets large enough, it seems ridiculous to us. You've engaged in a semantic argument here over the word ridiculous while ignoring the thrust of the argument -- that your appreciation of the difference in hitpoints is due to what assumptions you've brought in, not a fundamental requirement of the RAW.

my appreciation of the difference in hitpoints is due to what assumptions ive brought in, not a fundamental requirement of the RAW. the RAW fundamentally requires me to consider the will to live as a subordinate concept of hitpoints (not even counting other subordinate concepts throughout the games history that fit) and yet provides no basis for this requirement other than a throw away line in the definition of the statistic. as an abstraction the game requires me to make assumptions about what hitpoints are based on what the game tells me literally and what the game does mechanically, the game literally tells me that "Hit points represent a combination of physical and mental durability, the will to live, and luck" which does not even account for how hitpoints are related to a creatures experience as though its not specified in the definition of hitpoints its clearly a related concept to hitpoints because gaining experience increases a characters hitpoints without ever explaining why.

this game REQUIRES assumptions about what its mechanics mean in order to be played, thats the central theme of this entire threads arguments, what i did was took what the game defines as subordinate concepts to hitpoints and related concepts to hitpoints, dissected and analyzed what those concepts own subordinate concepts and related concepts are, and came to my conclusion about which proportion of hitpoint's subordinate concepts best reflect what it actually means as an abstraction.

if you want to tell me that ive brought anything outside of the fundamental requirement of RAW, prove it.

If you want my opinion about your choice of interpretation, I think it's far too limiting on the kinds of stories that can be told. If my characters must have supernatural ability to absorb damage with meat, then I can only have games that feature themes compatible with that, so no swashbuckling, or highly skilled martial artists, etc. I only have bricks that soak massive damage as a trope. It's too limiting.

If you use hitpoints as a broader abstraction, then you can use a broader set of tropes. This is the fundamental reason I disagree with your argument -- such a limit on usable tropes is entirely absent from the materials out for the game.

hitpoints and damage arnt the only mechanics in this game, i think everything you dont think fit into the concept of hitpoints as a measure of a characters durability (even if its supernaturally high) are covered by other mechanics. and if there are class features in the game or feats that grant hitpoints as a result of some other subordinate concept or related concept of hitpoints not mentioned in its definition then i dont know of it, however then for the instance of that ability that class feature or feat just happens to push the quantity of hitpoints that is defined by supernatural durability a few percent lower. your welcome to share all the mechanics in the game you think fit this.

 

[pemerton]

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.

I understand this argument but I'm not sure that I agree.

My starting point is LotR, pp 855-56 of my one volume copy:

So it was that Gandalf took command of the last defence of the City of Gondor Wherever he came men's hears would lift again, and the winged shadows pass from memory. Tirelessly he strode from Citadel to Gate, from north to south about the wall, and with him went the Prince of Dol Amroth in his shining mail.​

I think we can extrapolate from this that Gandalf could see where morale and vigour were fading, and go among those defending soldiers and raise their spirits and urge them on to action. This is one reason I prefer the 4e approach: it preserves the sort of abstraction that Gygax advocated, but frames it in a way that makes it more plausible to suppose that the flagging of resilience is visible.

4e's emphasis on positioning and condition infliction - while creating practical, at-the-table tracking issues that some people don't like - also helps here, as there are other visible things happening to protagonists that makes it more plausible to suppose that the flagging of their resilience is quite able to be noticed.

 

[pemerton]

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

Blood coming out of the ears! (I think I have this image from X-Men comics or movies.)

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.

Agreed.