Well, no. What you quoted previously is indeed the definition of abstraction -- the verb. The noun is the second para of the wikipedia article you posted and totally in-line with what I was saying. We're not engaged in (v.) abstraction because we aren't figuring out what things in surviving fights we want to abstract into hitpoints -- this is done for us already.
I did not quote the verb of abstraction before, because i never quoted the definition of abstraction until this quote that you are replying to. what i said before was
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.
Which isint me quoting the definition of abstraction, it was me paraphrasing it, i decided to quote it when you told me that i was using the definition incorrectly because as you say
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.
You're incorrect that you can not argue from the specific to the general if what you are arguing about the specific can be applied to all those encompassed in the general. If i am talking about hitpoints i am talking about physical durability as hitpoints among other things the game says are among things that i am talking about with hitpoints, but the game never specifies to what degree. What i've also argued along side this is against the idea of every subordinate concepts of hitpoints to apply to all of hitpoints related concepts, in doing so i've examined what those related concepts are and determined that there is no reasonable explanation for how some to most of damage in the game relates to anything but physical durability. The game basically requires damage to be a related concept to hitpoints, this may imply that everything about damage is a related concept or it might imply that different subordinate concepts of the damage abstract relate to different subordinate concepts of hitpoints, that much isn't explained and is within the bounds of interpretation, along with the quantities of each subordinate within the abstraction that is hitpoints.
Which is interesting because the abstraction that is damage actually does divide all of its subordinate concepts when it applies those subordinate concepts as related concepts to the abstraction of hitpoints. IE slashing damage isn't also every other form of damage in the game, but damage the only related concept that hitpoints specifies as being applied to it, that and "creatures", "healing", and "death".
This is exactly what I said it was, though. The fun thing about an abstraction is that the abstraction stands in for the whole -- it's not differentiated into it's concrete components in any way; it's a blur of all the things that went into it. So, when you change what goes into the abstraction, you've changed the abstraction. In 5e, as you've helpfully posted multiple times, that abstraction covers many things -- health, mental fortitude, luck, etc. Those are not separable into how much or how little because they've all been melded into the abstraction of hitpoints. We can't say how much mental fortitude is in a single hitpoint, nor how much physical damage, nor how much luck. The hitpoint abstraction is a well-blended smoothie.
When you start to say that hitpoints are mostly meat, you've changed the nature of the fundamental abstraction. You're still doing an abstraction, as you aren't specifying the specifics of the meat damage, but you're moved the abstraction from an unknown and unknowable mix of many things to a mix of primarily this one thing. You've change the ingredients in the smoothie. Now, you can say you still have a smoothie -- it's still an abstraction -- but it's not the same smoothie as the previous one. You can't alter the ingredients in a smoothie and claim it's the same kind or type or whatever as a smoothie with different ingredients. And you can't alter the inputs to an abstraction and claim it's the same abstraction. It's not, that's not how that works. You're fundamentally redefining hitpoints and claiming it's okay because it's still an abstraction, but that hitpoints are an abstraction isn't the important thing about them -- it's not fungible with other abstractions. You've created a different abstraction from how hitpoints are defined in 5e.
And, that's fine, you can do that, but you can't claim that because you've used physical damage in your abstraction that it's the same as how 5e defines hitpoints because 5e also uses physical damage in their abstraction. This is like saying your banana smoothie, featuring bananas, is the same thing as a strawberry-blueberry-banana smoothie because you both have banana.
If you are arguing that every subordinate concept of an abstraction applies to every related concept of an abstraction, then you are correct, which is why i wrote my thesis in the first place, pointing out how that doesn't make any sense based on what the game tells us about the related concepts to hitpoints; remember im not just arguing that your wrong, i'm arguing the GAME is wrong. You are also correct to argue that if i suggest that the majority of hitpoints subordinate qualities applies to the majority of damage's subordinate qualities then i would be arguing against the idea of an even blend, but the idea of an even blend is
NOT established by hitpoints definitions nor is it required by the definition of an abstraction. If you think that an even blend is required by the definition of abstraction then i will need to see a definition of abstraction that implies that, strongly.
Hitpoints aren't a well blended smoothie of subordinate concepts, even if it should be, that's why my initial criticisms of the abstract of hitpoints hinge so much on what damage is; one of hitpoints most important related concepts. While hitpoints is an abstraction, everything hitpoints is an abstraction of are ALSO abstractions with their own subordinate concepts and their own related concepts. This is where the problem comes in, the game does nothing to define those, so they require our own definitions to be used, personally i use the definitions i can find for them. mind you this is something someone earlier pointed out after my last rebuttal to you.
@pemerton ,
@Ovinomancer , and
@Arch-Fiend
I haven't fully read these exchanges, but here is some very brief input.
My take on HP is that the issues arise (for those that they do arise; eg not me) because they are both an (1)
abstraction and also a (2)
synthesis of interrelated systems (as in musculoskeletal, circulatory, and endocrine) combined with downstream interactions (how does neurological state a lead to morale b after events x, y, z?).
In a lot of D&D, the mechanic of HP is expected to do the heavy lifting for all of this (not even Dungeon World does this; disabilities does the heavy lifting for acute conditions).
Physical durability, mental durability, will to live, and luck, they are all abstractions of just about any concept that you can think relates to them. On the other hand, the subordinate qualities of damage arn't as much, they are actually very specific, acid, bludgeoning, cold, fire, lightening, necrotic, poison, psychic, radiant, thunder. These are all abstractions to some degree, but not nearly the degree to which the subordinate concepts of hitpoints are. This is for multiple reasons, mostly because these concepts are mostly defined outside the game of D&D very specifically, but those that arnt are defined rather specifically in D&D by simply referencing every single mention of them in every 5e book and using them as a bases.
When you just treat hitpoints as an abstraction which every subordinate of damage applies equally to, you also take a lot of power away from the dm to choose which subordinate quality of damage that is specifically being used (because they are divided for good reasons) and coming up with a narrative around it on the spot as improve, which the game states is the literal point of having hitpoints as an abstraction, because the game wants gms to have that power.
I come up with my narrative on what hitpoints represent before the game occurs but thats not invalidated simply because im not doing it in game the way the game implies i should, the game doesn't imply a way i SHOULD do it, it just says i should do it, and me coming up with the idea before hand that every response of what hitpoints is going to be is the same is no different than me desiring at the time it is. I will concede some ground however that some forms of damage make more sense to apply to D&D hitpoints as not just physical durability, as such my 99.99% meat argument is simply a placeholder for when anything else about the game changes, instances where it isnt applicable are rare however, which i cant say works the other way around.
This is easily not true if you look at damage types as a modifier to hitpoint cost, which is how it functions in game. The damage keywords are utterly unimportant unless and until you have a mechanic that engages them. Fire damage does the same kind of hitpoint damage as a slashing sword unless you are resistant or vunerable (or immune) to one or the other. At which point it's hitpoint cost changes. Damage types do not require hitpoint to be mostly meat, at all.
Id like to see your specific arguments on how damage keywords are utterly unimportant given they key to the concepts of immunity, resistance, and vulnerability except that only when those related concepts to damage are at play then physical takes more president. id actually be interested in hearing how each damage type relates to the subordinate concepts of hitpoints "mental durability", "will to live" and "luck". Luck seems like the next big one to physical durability because you can assign anything to luck, but luck is stretched out to apply to more things in this game that anything else, and its really a question of narratively how? What does luck mean to damage when lucks contribution to attack roles already effect how much damage your going to take? The other 2 i have no idea, but will to live might relate to necrotic damage or stopping your body from going into shock from the damage you take (though that would imply a lot of that damage is physical) mental obviously applies to psychic damage though doesent seem to fit much else. Anyway that's me doing some of the work you need to do in order to argue all the subordinate concepts of hitpoints apply to all the subordinate concepts of damage, i leave the rest to you.
I disagree emphatically. If I'm vulnerable to fire and am hit with a 10 point firebolt, I take 20 points of damage. Is that due to me needing more luck to avoid that fire because it has to go further astray to avoid critically searing my vulnerable flesh, or do I need more mental fortitude to tamp down the fear of buring as the bolt splashes across my armor, or do I really just cook a bit more than most when it hits me? Can't say, because hitpoints are an abstraction of all of those things in no particular quantity. Insisting that it must be that I take more damage because I actually burn more is your assumption, not a requirement of damage types.
I don't know why your disagreeing, because your wrong, you've admitted your wrong several times here, you know that hitpoints are only defined by the 4 subordinate concepts, to argue otherwise would open me up to putting anything i want into what hitpoints represent but also remove whatever i want as well. they are clearly not as i said "purely abstract in that they do not represent anything specific " and then disagree emphatically. they are those 4 things no matter how poorly those 4 things apply to the entire abstract that is damage and related concepts all at once.
Also your hypothetical seem to have nothing to do with what i was actually saying but relate to other things ive said so im going to reply to it here.
Bold are you implying that the subordinate concept of luck can be applied to the related conecpt of fire damage's related concept of vulnerability because the vulnerability is a lack of luck? But what does the fire damage due to you because of that lack of luck? does its have something to do with....idk meat points?
Underlined are you implying that the subordinate concept of mental durability can be applied to the related concept of fire damage's related concept of vulnerability because the vulnerability is fear? So the fear you have seeing fire makes you lose mental durability and ultimately the abstraction of hitpoints lowers? While i cant just say "but mah meat points" to that one i will share this quote i made to someone else earlier in reference to it
the issue with taking the fabulist stance is a question of why it is necessary, if the rules of the game never define reasons to take the fabulist stance, and you and your players both read the rules, heck you and millions of people all read the rules, and the rules point in one direction, while you can adopt a broader perspective on what it can mean, if you act on that broader perspective especially as the gm you are then lible to present an interpretation to players who depend on you that runs counter to the way the game described itself without that wider perspective having any grounds to base it on. human imagination is naturally simulations, even when we imagine the fantastical we imagine it in relation to something we can understand because of our experiences. the mind seeks to rationalize what we experience, any game then becomes a simulation of some interpretation of a compromise between the real and fabulous by very nature of having any grounding at all.
i still think its valid to interpret the game any way you want to mind you, but its worth keeping in mind how other people interpret it or dont interpret it and there reasons why, there reasons can be VERY valid.
Well, yes, it is odd that your formatting choices haven't carried the day. I'd speak to your copy editor about the failure, but I'd maybe first address your broken shift key.
Still, I was perhaps imprecise. By traits, I meant what things have gone into the abstraction. 5e uses a broader set of things in their abstraction than you do. I explain this above.
Again your just plain wrong, i dont know why your making this argument, its shooting yourself in the foot and not worth dying on, just admit you made a mistake, make up some reason for why you made a mistake, and move on from it. Because if i simply use physical durability as 99.99% of the abstraction that is hitpoints i am not using a broader set of subordinate concepts than the game is using, that is demonstrably true.
This is having your cake and eating it, too. And, no, you really can't. Because hitpoints as an abstraction aren't definable into quantity. Those specific things have been abstracted into the construct of hitpoints. They are not longer extractable in quantity. You aren't, for instance, okay with an all balls abstraction that says that your all balls is only soccer balls. That's not the abstraction, that's just soccer balls. And no amount of 'but, but, if I twist it this way' actually changes that.
so the issue your having here is the idea im saying 99.99% of balls are soccer balls, thats not what im saying, im saying 99.99% of the subordinate concepts to balls in relationship to the related concepts that matter in the discussion of the abstraction "balls" is "soccerballs" now you can make your arguements that im wrong in thinking that, which you have to do on a case by case for each related concept to hitpoints but you also have to say that 99.99% CANT be physical duribility either, because the game does not specify that i must maintain an even blind of all subordinate concepts with relation to damage.
Hitpoints are a multi ingredient smoothie, where the ingredients are in no defined amounts. If you define the amounts, even to say that it's predominately one thing, then it's not the same kind of smoothie.
To imply that one can not define the amounts of the ingredients means that one can not use it as a narrative tool. The entire purpose of the subordinate concepts of hitpoints is for the gm to be able to use those concepts to describe what hitpoint lose means in game, by the very nature of doing that he is assigning what quantity of one of those subordinate concepts is in relation to damage in that instance, he could say all of them and come up with a narration that describes how the damage applies to all of them, or he can say one of them (which is more likely given that its less work and we are only human). For you to imply i can not front load that is to imply that i could not do it in game either.
Not to mention you criticizing my quantity preferred as going against the idea of the multi-ingredient is to imply there is a defined amount, that defined amount not being subject to interpretation and definitely not my interpretation considering how long you've argued with me about it.
Again, it's fine if you do this, it just doesn't logically fall out of hitpoints for it to be that way -- it's just your preference. And that's awesome, this game is great because we can do this. And, if you stop insisting that your interpretation is the only one possible according to RAW because of damage types (which is really a stretch) and instead present it as how you do things because it works for you, you'll find much better reception for your ideas.
Personally, I don't care how you do hitpoints at your table. Well, actually I do, I hope it's the way that makes your game totes awesome for you, because that's the only real one true way to play -- finding your awesome. I do, however, have a problem with arguments that present your way as the way, especially when coupled with tortured arguments about what RAW must mean.
I've never insisted my interpretation is the only one possible, what i've tried to do is figure out what interpretation is best described by the game, in my attempt to do that i've come up with conclusions based on what the game says. its also been an effort to debunk the interpretations others make when the game makes a poor reference to base those interpretations on. I'm not doing that to say i'm correct, i'm doing this to say im valid in the face of those who would say i'm not valid. But again what i was talking about in my first post on this thread only matters up to the point where you've been arguing that my interpretation is invalid or doing anything that doesn't fit perfectly into the game; saying it doesn't fit with the smoothie that the game creates, which is just wrong which i've hopefully explained why by this point.
I am curious to see if anyone will be able to use my own argumentation for my argument against your narrow interpretation of the right way to adhere to the abstract that is hitpoints in D&D against my arguments about other people's interpretations that i wrote about in my first post. If your interested in that, could you at least put it in a separate post, these are starting to get unreasonably long with the quote-mining
Yup, it's an abstraction -- it's a blanket concept that covers, in no particular quantity, the things you've abstracted into it.
If there's no particular quantity, then stop insisting i have to include nonsensical uses of the subordinate concepts of it in my game or that it makes sense to even do so. The subordinate concepts to be used at any time are those applicable at that given time, my argument is that 99% of the time, its physical durability at supernatural levels.
No, it really doesn't. I don't have to assume anything about hitpoints, for instance, to use hitpoints. I can, which is cool, but I don't have to determine what hitpoints really are in my game to use them. That's how abstractions work. They rub people looking for more simulation the wrong way, and you appear to be that kind of person, but it's not required to nail down the abstraction to play.
Like when you play Pandemic and use one of your activations to move -- did you use a moped, a car, a plane, or a boat? Did you walk, maybe? Doesn't matter, and I don't have to define it to play the game -- I don't have to assume anything about the mode of transportation to use the mechanic. The same goes for hitpoints.
You not determining what hitpoints mean has no baring on me and anyone else doing so, its a roleplaying game, while we dont have to roleplay for anything, let alone combat, if we do we should probably be consistent for our players, being consistent means to have a good answer to the question of "how does this damage relate to the way you just described my hitpoints lowering?" I've asked that question as a dm before they ever had to, i came up with answers, and i posited them to everyone as the best ones that apply, each of those arguments are subject to a counter if its possible, but i surely havent seen many i cant argue against, though some are better than others. Ultimately what i would argue though is what is gained out of answering your players in any way but the best way if any other way would not make as much sense and change what they think they understand about your game?
I did -- you've brought in the assumption that hitpoints are mostly meat damage. That's you, there's no such thing in the RAW, certainly not fundamental.
You say that, yet ive also done my work in comparing the abstract of hitpoints to the abstract of damage, the abstract of damage implies things, when it implies those things then its best to take those implications as what RAW is telling us as that is how language works. Within the context of the implications raw makes, my assumption that hitpoints are mostly one of the subordinate concepts of hitpoints over the others is not outside RAW.
Yes, it will be difficult for me to find examples of hitpoints added to classes that specifically says "these are not supernatural durability hitpoints" because 5e doesn't equate hitpoints to supernatural durability. This means that there's no need to call out exceptions to a requirement that does not exist in the rules. If this is an argument you feel is strong, then perhaps we should agree to disagree as I can't see any path forward in a discussion where you ask me to show you a rule that contradicts a non-existent rule you've imagined.
Yeah my argument wasn't that you had to find examples of hitpoints added to classes that specificy says "these are not supernatural durability hitpoints"
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.
What i said was instances of mechanics in the game that grant hitpoints as a result of some other subordinate concept or related concept of hitpoints not mentioned in its definition. IE not physical durability, not mental durability, not will to live, not luck, and not healing (which is the only related concept in hitpoint's definition which is something that could be granted by another mechanic in the game).
When i was referring to supernatural durability, i was talking about how any concept that could be found it would push my percentage of supernatural durability down when it comes into play.
thealexandrian.net
