D&D General D&D isn't a simulation game, so what is???

[hawkeyefan]

I don't think there's a difference here for simulation. Simulation doesn't have to be simulating "reality" at all -- it can simulate genre, or a trope, or something else. I think that you've swapped in "simulating reality" for "simulation" and here, sure, you have a point, but only because you've reduced it to a specific goal for simulation. To whit, I could have a rule that has a strong simulation for magic -- when the mechanic resolves, it tells us exactly what happens in the fiction. This is very much simulation, but not at all realistic.

This is true! I was using it as "simulating reality" which is the context I think many use it, and which I tend to find frustrating.

 

[Ovinomancer]

This is true! I was using it as "simulating reality" which is the context I think many use it, and which I tend to find frustrating.

Going to what I think is the larger point -- I absolutely agree that there's often not a difference in degree between two rules that attempt to simulate something but do it in different ways. And I think which you prefer is going to be based on how you perceive the most important bits to simulate and not on any objective measure.

 

[Oofta]

@Oofta @Hussar
I wondering about what would be needed to be added to the rules to make HP more clearly tie into the story (e.g. not carry 0 information to some) and still be easy to use and D&Dish. What about something like:

"Each character's hit point total represents both capacity to take actual damage (roughly 3/4 of their starting hitpoint total at 1st level rounded up) and ability to avoid taking actual damage from attacks due to skill, stamina, luck, etc.. (the rest of them).

So, each "hit" to a character could be thought of as doing a (roughly for higher level characters) 1/(2*level) fraction of the total of damage of the appropriate type (burns for fire, frost-bite for cold, cuts for slashing, bruises for bludgeoning, etc...) and the rest as a reduction in capability to avoid damage.

To smooth gameplay, the amounts are not tracked separately, and the default is to give no penalty for different amounts of damage taken, but the character will certainly have a rough idea how close they are to death and act accordingly.

The allocation of damage doesn't typically result in integer amounts. For narrative purposes, any "hit" at all involves a minor singe, tingle, scratch, or soreness as appropriate. A single hit for twice the characters level or more is definitely a noteworthy burn or cut.

A "simple gritty" version gives a -2 on all rolls if the characters is 'significantly bloodied' (that is significantly injured and at half hp or below) and gives a scar for any significant wound (single blow that causes 2*level of damage).

The optional rules also allow for the two types of hit points to be tracked separately as "wounds and vigor" with different healing options, healing rates, and penalties for each type of damage. This is facilitated by using an app or online tool (and is an option in DnDBeyond, for example)."

Let's take a simple scenario. Two very different fighters in a cage match, last one standing wins.

In one corner we have PG (Power Gal). Maybe 135 pounds soaking wet but has studied every martial arts technique known to man and a couple of techniques only known to women. Washboard abs and fists that hit with far more impact than you would expect because she's spent her life creating microfractures in the bones that are denser and stronger than normal bone when they heal.

In the other corner we have BB (Big Bruiser). Weighs twice as much as PG and he probably has washboard abs buried under layers of fat. Doesn't look like a body builder, he's built for strength and taking blows. He isn't an expert on any fighting technique because he punches so hard it usually doesn't matter.

In the ring PG realizes she has to dodge in and out of BB's reach, pummel him with quick hits and then get out of the way. She quickly realizes hitting him in the midsection doesn't do as much damage as hoped, the blubber absorbs much of the impact. She gets a hit into the side of his head, but it's like hitting a stone wall. Does damage, but not as much as if his head had rocked back and caused his brain to slosh around more. BB doesn't bother avoiding blows, he thinks he can take it all day. But she keeps punching away, focusing on a couple of key spots, knowing it's going to add up.

Meanwhile when BB swings at PG she dodges out of the way when he manages to connect she to twist to the side turning it into a glancing blow. Hurts, but not as much as he's used to, since most people he fights are also bruisers. PG does exert herself more and stretches muscles and tendons to their limit avoiding blows, slowly reducing her chance to deflect blows. BB eventually manage to get a reasonably solid hit to her midsection which visibly hurts PG because there' just nothing there but muscle and bone to absorb the impact.

BB manages to grapple PG, and hears a rib or two crack but it doesn't stop her. PG manage to headbutt BB in the face, breaking his nose filling his sinuses with blood and distracting BB long enough for her to get free. BB is tiring quickly, lacking PG's stamina but PG has internal bleeding from the cracked ribs and is having a hard time breathing.

How do you map that to a game? A simple solution like yours isn't going to cut it - they both have entirely different fighting styles, defenses and injuries. Actual damage for BB is completely different from actual damage to PG. The types of injuries they sustain makes a difference and I'm not even mentioning the mental game, something which many people familiar with the topic will tell you is just as important.

Which means all this just comes down to preference, expectations and what will work for you and your group. I don't think categorizing HP or applying penalties makes enough of a difference to make it worth my while. YMMV, I think HP (and AC and damage) is a significant simplification but I'm not sure other options are much better.

 

[Cadence]

How do you map that to a game? A simple solution like yours isn't going to cut it - they both have entirely different fighting styles, defenses and injuries. Actual damage for BB is completely different from actual damage to PG. The types of injuries they sustain makes a difference and I'm not even mentioning the mental game, something which many people familiar with the topic will tell you is just as important.

Definitely.

Which means all this just comes down to preference, expectations and what will work for you and your group. I don't think categorizing HP or applying penalties makes enough of a difference to make it worth my while. YMMV, I think HP (and AC and damage) is a significant simplification but I'm not sure other options are much better.

I was just trying to address the complaint that HP added literally nothing to the actual narrative of the game - without getting much more complicated.

As far as more complicated, I remember making up a character for Phoenix Command once... (I think that's as far as we got).

 

[pemerton]

I think a largely untapped design element of 5e would be damage to Hit Dice.

I feel like an attack that in some way reduces Hit Dice would be a cool mechanic, and likely evocative of the kinds of dangerous enemies that had the ability to level drain and similar types of attacks from earlier editions. Or perhaps certain situations like Drowning or Falling would do Hit Dice damage rather than HP. Once you're at 0 Hit Dice, you're in real danger and any additional Hit Dice damage you take would mean you're Dying just as if you'd dropped to 0 HP.

Except for the last bit, 4e D&D had a bit of this - wights drain healing surges, environmental damage is tracked in healing surges, etc.

My experience is that it's a mechanic of marginal utility, for two reasons.

(1) At higher level, when a fighter's healing surge is worth so much more than a MU's, leaning on healing surges in lieu of hp for environmental damage and the like becomes a bit too rough-and-ready. In my game I dropped it, and would just apply level-appropriate damage and let the players deduct healing surges to heal it as they saw fit. This let the fighter and paladin get the proper benefit of their high surge values.

(2) In combat, losing a healing surge doesn't immediately set you back - and so in that sense is less scary than hp loss - but runs down your ability to recover and go on - and so in that sense is more frustrating than hp loss, turning the focus of play away from the here-and-now of the encounter and onto the future. So I don't think it works quite as was intended.

A model like you suggest, where surge/HD loss feeds into a death spiral that is more than just a matter of attrition, might generate a different experience . . .

 

[Thomas Shey]

Definitely.



I was just trying to address the complaint that HP added literally nothing to the actual narrative of the game - without getting much more complicated.

As far as more complicated, I remember making up a character for Phoenix Command once... (I think that's as far as we got).

Bringing up PC is kind of excluding hell out of the middle here, though.

I mean, to be super-cynical here, suggesting nothing more sophisticated while still playable than a damage system that was first developed 45 years ago and has only been altered in a couple of largely mild ways ever since (negative hits to death and fixed first level die) has been come up with since is quite a take, and can't help but make me think its got more to people being overly attached to tradition than any real grounding in argument.

 

[Oofta]

Definitely.



I was just trying to address the complaint that HP added literally nothing to the actual narrative of the game - without getting much more complicated.

As far as more complicated, I remember making up a character for Phoenix Command once... (I think that's as far as we got).

I appreciate the effort, I just don't agree with HP adds literally nothing to the narrative. You have to have some way of tracking how much a person can sustain before losing consciousness. There's never going to be a particularly good way of doing that. Even the penalty at 1/4 HP doesn't necessarily work because you can get temporarily stunned and then recover. There are other stories of people fighting and defeating their opponent not even realizing they were injured and then falling dead after the fight.

 

[Cadence]

Bringing up PC is kind of excluding hell out of the middle here, though.

I mean, to be super-cynical here, suggesting nothing more sophisticated while still playable than a damage system that was first developed 45 years ago and has only been altered in a couple of largely mild ways ever since (negative hits to death and fixed first level die) has been come up with since is quite a take, and can't help but make me think its got more to people being overly attached to tradition than any real grounding in argument.

I was not going for the middle at all there and apologize if it sounded like I was. On my original suggestion I was trying to go as close to D&D as possible with a bit of narration. And the Phoenix Command one was in response to @Oofta 's super detailed fighting example was either.

 

[Cadence]

I appreciate the effort, I just don't agree with HP adds literally nothing to the narrative. You have to have some way of tracking how much a person can sustain before losing consciousness. There's never going to be a particularly good way of doing that. Even the penalty at 1/4 HP doesn't necessarily work because you can get temporarily stunned and then recover. There are other stories of people fighting and defeating their opponent not even realizing they were injured and then falling dead after the fight.

I didn't say it was my complaint (or remark if that sounds negative).

 

[Oofta]

Bringing up PC is kind of excluding hell out of the middle here, though.

I mean, to be super-cynical here, suggesting nothing more sophisticated while still playable than a damage system that was first developed 45 years ago and has only been altered in a couple of largely mild ways ever since (negative hits to death and fixed first level die) has been come up with since is quite a take, and can't help but make me think its got more to people being overly attached to tradition than any real grounding in argument.

Just because you've decided HP are terrible doesn't mean they serve well enough for most people. I'm okay with change, I just have yet to see a system that would be that much better and not just tweaking the HP concept in ways that don't really seem to add all that much value to the game.

I don't have a problem if you prefer different systems. Just don't insult others by claiming that the only reason to keep HP is tradition.