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".

 

[Maxperson]

Again: I have seen numerous DMs do this. I have seen them repeatedly chalk up early-campaign problems to luck/freak dice, bad planning, a group that didn't mesh well together, etc. Essentially anything except considering a higher level.

I've seen numerous DMs do that, too. I've also seen many(not as many) start at 3rd or higher level. Pretty much since 3e came out. I saw 0 DMs allow higher level before 3e.

I think that if the DMG and PHB had sidebars about starting at higher levels, more DMs would take it to heart and allow it.

Why should it be confusing? It's a separate system. Include it in the back matter, separate from the normal progression, but still in a player-facing location. There's TONS of optional stuff that people opt into that aren't front-and-center, and those things have never caused confusion to the best of my knowledge. E.g., the game includes feats, but they're not at all forced or required, and I have yet to see a single player be utterly flummoxed by why there's these weird "feat" things when everyone actually just gets ASIs.

I've seen arguments in this thread against it being included, because it would cause confusion. I won't. Ignored perhaps. Cause confusion, no.

It seems to me you're massively inflating whatever confusion might result from this.

Not me. I'm arguing against it causing confusion.

The fact that 55.5% of the votes in that go for 1st level, when 5e so strongly encourages starting at 3rd, looks way more like evidence for my position than yours. Even in a game that you really, REALLY should start at 3rd, people start at 1st level.

Not really. I'm not claiming most DMs allow higher level. I'm saying that a significant number allow it. That poll strongly supports my conclusion.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I have worked in a similar field, and I can tell you, it doesn't matter how prominent you make the warning. It could be a full-page spread with inch-tall holographic red-and-yellow letters saying

"DO NOT PLAY AT 1ST LEVEL IF YOU ARE A NEW PLAYER."

LOTS of people would still overlook it, despite being highly intelligent etc.

Very definitely agreed.

More importantly than that, though? It's not players you need to drill this into. It's DMs, and I've seen how pig-headed they are about this. The vast majority of DMs I've spoken to are absolutely certain that, unless there's a really really good personal reason (e.g. "I have a specific campaign idea that simply won't work at 1st level"), literally 100% of campaigns should start at 1st level. I know this because I've tried to persuade numerous DMs to consider starting at a higher level in 5e, specifically to help brand-new players get into the swing of things. I have been turned down literally 100% of the time, not a single DM has considered running the game at a higher level unless their campaign premise required it in the first place.

And then you get weirdos like me who's not dead keen on level one - but I've started my last couple of campaigns not at first level but 0th level, essentially making character creation and class choice into a played session zero rather than something that's done in isolation.

There's no defeating that level of ingrained "knowledge." The practical choice is to accept that that's what DMs think, and provide a solution which accepts that belief, rather than insisting that if you can just teach them the correct way, then everything will be fine.

Agreed.

 

[Minigiant]

The problem isn't starting at level 1 really.
The problem is adventuring at level 1.

Fans don't have a good concept of Tiers. Only 4e taught that well. So DMs and Players think level1 characters are heroes and not the raw green novices with no exp they are. A level 1 character* is just barely not rookies but most level 1 adventures treat them at vets.

Some of the adventures for level 1 PCs are crazy in game. Who sends greenhorns on escort missions and execution quests?
"Oh no they ded fiteing a beeg monster with no trainers around."

*except in 4e where the game plainly states that level 1 PCs are veteran heroes of the heroic tier.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The problem isn't starting at level 1 really.
The problem is adventuring at level 1.

Fans don't have a good concept of Tiers. Only 4e taught that well. So DMs and Players think level1 characters are heroes and not the raw green novices with no exp they are. A level 1 character* is just barely not rookies but most level 1 adventures treat them at vets.

Some of the adventures for level 1 PCs are crazy in game. Who sends greenhorns on escort missions and execution quests?
"Oh no they ded fiteing a beeg monster with no trainers around."

*except in 4e where the game plainly states that level 1 PCs are veteran heroes of the heroic tier.

While I appreciate your point, ultimately this seems like a distinction without a difference.

This perception has, to my knowledge, held for every WotC D&D, and I suspect it goes back to 2e and earlier (I'd have to ask those who played them). Yet AFAIK it's true in every edition except possibly 4e that you really shouldn't start at 1st level if you want a smooth introduction. Even 4e, I have heard plenty of DMs say you should probably start a bit higher up.

If a solid majority of people have behaved as though 1st level is the best (or even only) starting point, when it demonstrably hasn't been...is it more productive to change what "1st level" means so they're right, or to try to change decades of received wisdom and adventure design ideas in order to get people to see 1st level "correctly"?

Only one of these things is actually within a designer's control.

 

[Neonchameleon]

*except in 4e where the game plainly states that level 1 PCs are veteran heroes of the heroic tier.

And in 1e where a first level fighter is explicitly a veteran. And in 5e where a first level wizard can firebolt at will and that's scary. (I could make a case for other editions).

 

[Minigiant]

While I appreciate your point, ultimately this seems like a distinction without a difference.

This perception has, to my knowledge, held for every WotC D&D, and I suspect it goes back to 2e and earlier (I'd have to ask those who played them). Yet AFAIK it's true in every edition except possibly 4e that you really shouldn't start at 1st level if you want a smooth introduction. Even 4e, I have heard plenty of DMs say you should probably start a bit higher up.

If a solid majority of people have behaved as though 1st level is the best (or even only) starting point, when it demonstrably hasn't been...is it more productive to change what "1st level" means so they're right, or to try to change decades of received wisdom and adventure design ideas in order to get people to see 1st level "correctly"?

Only one of these things is actually within a designer's control.

There is a distinction and difference.

D&D* is designed as if level 1 PCs are novices.
D&D* is played as if level 1 PCs are young veterans.

I think we are past the point where you can convince people that 1st level is novice level. So we have to design 1st level as veteran.

*except 4e

 

[Crimson Longinus]

There is a distinction and difference.

D&D* is designed as if level 1 PCs are novices.
D&D* is played as if level 1 PCs are young veterans.

I think we are past the point where you can convince people that 1st level is novice level. So we have to design 1st level as veteran.

*except 4e

I don’t agree with that assessment. I certainly don’t see people assuming that first level characters are veterans.

 

[Minigiant]

And in 1e where a first level fighter is explicitly a veteran. And in 5e where a first level wizard can firebolt at will and that's scary. (I could make a case for other editions).

I think this is more the difference of being a veteran of an experience and being a veteran of experience which makes you a professional.

Your level1 fighter is a veteran because he was at the Battle of Red Road or defended his home from raiders or a wandering ogre.

He's a veteran a of A major battle or A death funnel.


He's not the veteran of a war serving the frontline thatyou wold you know trust them to escort goods through the wilderness to a gang infested town with no experienced cararvan guards overseeing the mission.

 

[Minigiant]

I don’t agree with that assessment. I certainly don’t see people assuming that first level characters are veterans.

Many DMs and many adventures put 1st level PCs is situations you'd neeeeeveeeeer hire rookies for unless you want them to fail and/or die.

 

[billd91]

I don’t agree with that assessment. I certainly don’t see people assuming that first level characters are veterans.

That was a label that distinguished the 1st level fighter from a 0-level NPC.
We never put much stock in those level names.