D&D General When the fiction doesn't match the mechanics

[DEFCON 1]

In general there need to be more things that can or do bypass hit points partly or completely. You quite rightly note poison and assassination; to which I'll add falling any significant distance*, drowning, limb (or head!) amputation, massive damage, and a fair number of specific spells.

For falling, one option might be to put the damage on a quickly-escalating multiplier as the fall diestance becomes greater e.g. the first damage die is flat, the second is x2, the third is x3, and so on until the 20th die is x20...by which point if you're still rolling then the character has WAY too many hit points!

Here's the problem I see with what you propose:

You and @cbwjm seem to want more narrative opportunity for easy ways to kill or to die... rather than the strictly game-based balancing of "knock someone's number down to zero before they knock your number down to zero." And I understand that from a conceptual point of view-- yes, it makes all the sense in a fantasy-world-based "reality" why these characters would and could suffer immediate death from falling, or get injected with poisons from which there's no survival, or easily drown, lose limbs, etc.

But the issue is that if you make these changes to the "game" strictly for story or narrative purposes-- because those kinds of massive injury or death should occur with much more frequency in the story of what D&D characters go through-- then we should also accept the massive change to story and narrative that would run parallel to that...

...which is not a single person in any sense of reality (fantasy or otherwise) would EVER put themselves into the trauma of what D&D characters go through on a DAILY basis. Especially not for the nebulous reasons D&D characters decide to "go adventuring".

They just wouldn't. If we take a look at what a standard D&D character goes through physically, mentally, and spiritually in a 24-hour period based on standard D&D gameplay... the amount of pain, suffering, murder, mind control, burning, freezing, decapitation, poisoning, grave injury, etc. etc. etc... there is ZERO reality in any of that. You get literally burned alive by taking a Burning Hands spell to the face... and we're supposed to think that a simple Cure Wounds spell will remove all of the anguish you went through and five minutes later you just jump up, brush yourself off, and say "Okay! Let's go! Where to next?" And the character does and then experiences the exact same trauma 15 minutes later, and then 15 minutes after that, and after that, and after that... throwing themselves into one giant ball of pain and suffering day after day after day all in the name of "Adventuring!"

No. Narratively, the world of pretty much every single adventure game is completely fake and has no sense of any sort of reality as to how human beings react to trauma. And thus... I find it kind of silly to want/require/need one side of "fantasy-world reality" represented in "easier ways to die", but are completely okay handwaving the other side away of what happens when you actually experience that easier death over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

If we're going to handwave one... there's no reason not to handwave the other. Especially if doing so makes the game aspect of D&D more balanced for all players involved.

 

[Aldarc]

Simulating a genre and simulating an imaginary world are two very different things, and my biggest problem with the Forge is that Ron Edwards lumped them together and people started just accepting it.

It's nowhere near as big of a problem IMHO as lumping together "simulating an imaginary world" with "simulating our reality," which is far more common in discussions of simulationism, particularly when it comes to things like hit points.

 

[Mallus]

This makes the extremely common error of assuming that all RPGs are about telling a story. Not even all versions of D&D are about that!

Every version of D&D models protagonists. That’s what hit points and the leveling system do.

 

[Mannahnin]

Every version of D&D models protagonists. That’s what hit points and the leveling system do.

And saving throws, as Gary was very explicit and detailed about in the 1E DMG.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It's nowhere near as big of a problem IMHO as lumping together "simulating an imaginary world" with "simulating our reality," which is far more common in discussions of simulationism, particularly when it comes to things like hit points.

Sure, but you're not a simulationist. I would expect you to have less of a problem with the Forge than I do.

 

[Aldarc]

Sure, but you're not a simulationist. I would expect you to have less of a problem with the Forge than I do.

Stop. You are treating GDS/GNS as if they were gangs you pledge yourself to. I have not sworn myself to any gang, Micah, and I would prefer if you would not treat me according to whatever box you are tempted to throw me into so you can dismiss the point that I am making. I am not talking about the Forge. I don't care about the chip you are carrying on your shoulder about the Forge. I am talking about the problem of simulationists who mistake "simulating an imaginary world" with "simulating notions of realism in our world."

 

[Micah Sweet]

Stop. You are treating GDS/GNS as if they were gangs you pledge yourself to. I have not sworn myself to any gang, Micah, and I would prefer if you would not treat me according to whatever box you are tempted to throw me into so you can dismiss the point that I am making. I am not talking about the Forge. I don't care about the chip you are carrying on your shoulder about the Forge. I am talking about the problem of simulationists who mistake "simulating an imaginary world" with "simulating notions of realism in our world."

Most imaginary worlds I'm familiar with are like the real world, plus explicit supernatural stuff. Those are the worlds I make for my games, and the ones I prefer to play in, and almost all the worlds I've ever even seen.

 

[Retros_x]

This is a tangent in another thread, so why not a dedicated thread about it.

So ENWorlders, in what ways do you find the fiction of D&D does not match the mechanics of D&D?

Some top choices are being able to trip a gelatinous cube (whole thread on that, no need to relitigate that here), knocking dragons prone while in flight, the disconnect of AC and what it means to hit something, the difference between hit points as "meat" vs "energy," what damage actually represents, what does it mean to "heal" when hit points are not meat, etc.

So where else does the fiction of D&D not match the mechanics?

I never understood the HP and AC discussion. AC represents the defense potential of someone to prevent damage to themselves, HP represents the damage if they can't prevent it. These are abstractions, but the abstractions are representing (matching) the fiction.

But I think a lot of the "abstract HP" base are misunderstanding that HP CAN still be flesh points. They are both, flesh, moral, psyche, luck, everything together needed to keep a creature standing. So if a sword damages you, of course you get physically hurt and not some nonsense like "you still manage to dodge the sword but you feel exhausted and you get more sloppy".

Long Rest heal is also not a problem IMO. The air on Faerun is magical so all wounds heal over a few nights of good sleep. If you want it a bit more realistic, use variant rules.

The biggest real mismatch between fiction and mechanics are level ups. In a sudden moment characters are getting much mightier. I like to play that when the players have enough EXP they need to spend a week of downtime for level up, so they can't level up in the middle of a dungeon, it feels a bit more natural and I have some more reason to use downtime and get to burn a bit through the calender so the campaign doesnt play over the course over a short period of time. It let me make the factions and villains do moves and let the world feel a bit more alive.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I never understood the HP and AC discussion. AC represents the defense potential of someone to prevent damage to themselves, HP represents the damage if they can't prevent it. These are abstractions, but the abstractions are representing (matching) the fiction.

But I think a lot of the "abstract HP" base are misunderstanding that HP CAN still be flesh points. They are both, flesh, moral, psyche, luck, everything together needed to keep a creature standing. So if a sword damages you, of course you get physically hurt and not some nonsense like "you still manage to dodge the sword but you feel exhausted and you get more sloppy".

Long Rest heal is also not a problem IMO. The air on Faerun is magical so all wounds heal over a few nights of good sleep. If you want it a bit more realistic, use variant rules.

The biggest real mismatch between fiction and mechanics are level ups. In a sudden moment characters are getting much mightier. I like to play that when the players have enough EXP they need to spend a week of downtime for level up, so they can't level up in the middle of a dungeon, it feels a bit more natural and I have some more reason to use downtime and get to burn a bit through the calender so the campaign doesnt play over the course over a short period of time. It let me make the factions and villains do moves and let the world feel a bit more alive.

I categorically refuse to accept any explanation of "magical air" that exists in no source other than the DMs rationalizing mind.

 

[James Gasik]

I never understood the HP and AC discussion. AC represents the defense potential of someone to prevent damage to themselves, HP represents the damage if they can't prevent it. These are abstractions, but the abstractions are still matching the mechanics.

But I think a lot of the "abstract HP" base are misunderstanding that HP CAN still be flesh points. They are both, flesh, moral, psyche, luck, everything together needed to keep a creature standing. So if a sword damages you, of course you get physically hurt and not some nonsense like "you still manage to dodge the sword but you feel exhausted and you get more sloppy".

Long Rest heal is also not a problem IMO. The air on Faerun is magical so all wounds heal over a few nights of good sleep. If you want it a bit more realistic, use variant rules.

The biggest real mismatch between fiction and mechanics are level ups. In a sudden moment characters are getting much mightier. I like to play that when the players have enough EXP they need to spend a week of downtime for level up, so they can't level up in the middle of a dungeon, it feels a bit more natural and I have some more reason to use downtime and get to burn a bit through the calender so the campaign doesnt play over the course over a short period of time. It let me make the factions and villains do moves and let the world feel a bit more alive.

The argument comes mostly from the fact that people don't know how much physical damage was sustained, as players continue to function without impediment until they don't.

I liken hit points to the durability of action movie heroes. They're constantly taking minor wounds and only occasionally pause for minor first aid. But even action heroes can be slowed down to at least demonstrate they aren't invulnerable. Leaving blood trails behind, limping, getting slower to recover- none of this happens mechanically.

We're told, of course, that this is occurring in the narrative, but since the mechanics and the narrative aren't 1:1, it leads to disputes. Did get stabbed by a goblin's spear leave a gaping wound gushing blood everywhere when it does 9 damage? Or can you take another 9 such hits without really noticing?

It all depends on who the person being stabbed is. The level 1 Wizard, taking 9 damage, is likely on death's door. The level 17 Barbarian barely notices.

The same level 1 Cure Wounds spell cast by the same Cleric heals the same damage, but the Wizard is suddenly completely revitalized from dying and the Barbarian is like "huh, shouldn't have wasted your God's power on a papercut."