D&D General Are Hit Points Meat? (Redux): D&D Co-Creator Saw Hit Points Very Differently

D&D co-creator Dave Arneson wasn't a fan of hit points increasing with level. According to the excellent Jon Peterson's Playing at the World he felt that hit points should be fixed at character creation, with characters becoming harder to hit at higher levels.

Of course, this is an early example of the oft-lengthily and vehemently discussed question best summarised as ‘Are hit points meat?’— a debate which has raged for over 40 years and isn’t likely to be resolved today! (but no they’re not)

Arneson's Hit Points for Characters

Game Wizards is very decidedly not a book about who invented which system in D&D. But early drafts of the book did track one design choic...

playingattheworld.blogspot.com

Arneson later created a hit point equation in his 1979 RPG Adventures in Fantasy which was a game in which he hoped to correct "the many errors in the original rules".

 

[Vaalingrade]

Out of curiosity what should a "hit" in combat be called? Are you not hitting someone with your axe when you roll to hit and you hit?

Impact.

This can mean physical or metaphorical.

The way modern board games do it is something like this:

“If this is your first time playing, use the rules for creating a 1st level character…

After you are familiar with the game, we recommend starting at 3rd level”

I feel like the traditional D&D level 1 experience discourages more new players than it nurtures due to not feeding the expected fantasy and implies a more stressful experience than the rest of the game traditionally offers.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Out of curiosity what should a "hit" in combat be called? Are you not hitting someone with your axe when you roll to hit and you hit?

It is a hit. It connects, but leaves only a scratch (or minor concussion). A little pain. Nothing you will die from. Except when the blow down to zero is dealt.
Easy peasy.
I am no combatant. But I can withstand many scratches without dying. How about you?

 

[Stalker0]

Impact.

This can mean physical or metaphorical.

I feel like the traditional D&D level 1 experience discourages more new players than it nurtures due to not feeding the expected fantasy and implies a more stressful experience than the rest of the game traditionally offers.

In that case you make 3rd level 1st, and then create a few “gritty levels”. In description it would be:

“Gritty levels: for dnd veterans who like more realism, you may start your character with a gritty level. Gritty characters are weaker and more fragile than standard characters. After you have obtained two gritty levels and are about to take a 3rd, instead gain the benefits of a 1st level character”

something to that effect

 

[Vaalingrade]

I don't think it would be moral to refer to 'gritty' is 'realism', but yeah.

 

[Lanefan]

No. They won't. Half of them won't even look in the box, assuming it to be optional and not meant for them.

If the player-side box flat-out states something like "The default is that your characters aren't very tough when they first start out and that they will gain toughness as the game progresses", that's all you need.

If people don't read the box and then complain, that's on them.

The options to start at a different level than the default should be presented DM-side only, on the (admittedly not always correct) assumption that the DM of a group has or is willing to gain at least some familiarity with the system.

 

[Stalker0]

I don't think it would be moral to refer to 'gritty' is 'realism', but yeah.

hehe it was just a basic try obviously with no polish. If I was really going to do it, it would look something like this:

Neophyte Character: A 1st level character (aka a 3rd level one in our current speak) is already assumed to have some competency and skill, able to face many challenges in the world that would kill an ordinary person. However, some veterans of the game may enjoy a character that starts out less skilled and competent than normal. To play a Neophyte character, create a normal 1st level character but make the following changes:

• Gain half of your normal starting gold and Hitpoints
• Your proficiency bonus is +1
• You only gain the following class abilities (core 4 shown for an example):
  • Cleric - Channel Divinity (1/rest), Spellcasting (Cantrips only)
  • Fighter - Fighting Style, Second Wind
  • Rogue - Cunning Action, Thieves Can't
  • Wizard - Spellcasting (Cantrips, 1 1st level slot)

Once a Neophyte receives 100 xp (just an example number) they become a full 1st level character.

Untrained Character: For the ultimate gritty challenge, players can choose to start as untrained characters. Such characters have never adventured, and are not even true members of a class yet. To play an Untrained Character, create a normal 1st level character but make the following changes:

• No starting gold. Hitpoints = 4 + con
• Proficiency Bonus = +1
• No class features or proficiencies (an untrained character may have a class they wish to take, but has not actually selected a class yet).
• An untrained character does receive all proficiencies and benefits from race and background.

Once an untrained character receives 75 XP, they choose a class and become a Neophyte character.

 

[Maxperson]

No. They won't. Half of them won't even look in the box, assuming it to be optional and not meant for them. The other half will look in the box and be confused: Wait, am I supposed to do something here? Why is the game asking me what level to start at? Don't you start at one? And the typical new-user response to confusion is to wave the whole thing off and proceed with default settings*, on the assumption that those defaults were chosen for good reason.

When someone is new to your system, they are busy trying to understand the most basic concepts. Trying to explain the nuances of configuration options goes right over their head.

*Or to decide the whole thing is too confusing and bail.


No, they won't--because the exact same process I just described will play out, where they see the optional setting, assume it isn't meant for them, and proceed with defaults. The difference is, that assumption will be right.

I think you are underestimating the intelligence of people. Nobody is going to be confused by a sidebar(box) explaining that you can start at level three to give the players more survivability, such that a cat is unable to kill them like it could potentially kill a level 1 PC. They're going to understand what it's saying and can make an informed choice based on it.

 

[Neonchameleon]

So label levels one and two ‘optional’. No need to invent some bizarre zero or negative levels.

And yet I start 5e campaigns at level zero most of the time. With your class being found out in play.

 

[Vaalingrade]

hehe it was just a basic try obviously with no polish. If I was really going to do it, it would look something like this:

I'm just going to apologize if my response made you feel you needed to type all that out.

 

[Dausuul]

I think you are underestimating the intelligence of people.

I'm a web developer. I see this behavior all the time, and smart people do it just as much as dumb people. Put them in an unfamiliar context and they will overlook stuff that's right in front of their nose, because they are busy trying to assimilate all the other stuff.

It's got nothing to do with intelligence.