D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[Gimby]

Given I'm specifically talking about hit points here, that's kind of a nonsensical ask. The whole point with talking mooks is mostly about them doing the same sort of thing elevating hit points do in the opposite direction.

Right, the alternative way to look at this is that most things should be minions and that having hit points is the unusual factor. Take tabletop Warhammer (including 40k) Most entities have a single Wound and are taken out with a single solid hit. A genetically engineered super-solider has 2 Wounds (and they didn't even have that till relatively recently) This is fairly typical in wargaming - units being able to take multiple telling hits tend to be quite rare (or often linked to "death spiral" type mechanics - see Battletech or Adeptus Titanicus)

It's not even really without precedent in the RPG scene - Savage World Extras and 7th Sea Brute Squads function in broadly the same way - a single telling hit is enough to defeat them (or multiple at a time for 7th Sea)

We see this dynamic play out in the Jackson LOTR films - taking more than a single good hit to defeat the torch carrier at Helm's Deep is surprising to the heroes. At Amon Hen most of the orcs are felled with a single good hit - only Lurtz really stands up to more punishment than that.

Under such a model the issue is more that weak attacks are overestimated. A teenager throwing a rock probably shouldn't be able to do hit point damage at all (unless they've got a proper weapon, ask Goliath). Housecats aren't a serious threat to adult humans. This just needs us to accept that the combat engine is an abstraction of a certain type of physical conflict and shouldn't be used outside of this.

 

[Deset Gled]

Right, the alternative way to look at this is that most things should be minions and that having hit points is the unusual factor. Take tabletop Warhammer (including 40k) Most entities have a single Wound and are taken out with a single solid hit. A genetically engineered super-solider has 2 Wounds (and they didn't even have that till relatively recently) This is fairly typical in wargaming - units being able to take multiple telling hits tend to be quite rare (or often linked to "death spiral" type mechanics - see Battletech or Adeptus Titanicus)

Isn't this effectively the origin of hit points? Both the concept and the terminology? It's part of the evolution of D&D from its wargame beginnings.

Housecats aren't a serious threat to adult humans.

Sounds like you've never given one a bath.

 

[Gimby]

Isn't this effectively the origin of hit points? Both the concept and the terminology? It's part of the evolution of D&D from its wargame beginnings.

Yes, absolutely - and that narratively powerful entities would often still be modeled with a single hitpoint

Sounds like you've never given one a bath.

Oh, my 1st level commoner arms are testament to that and giving Her Ladyship medicines. I certainly wasn't in danger of my life though.

 

[Thomas Shey]

You don't think armor training makes in-fiction sense?

Not when its absolute. I've played a number of games with armor training rules (Alternity comes to mind, as does AGE) but they don't stop you from wearing armor you're not trained in if you want to; they just make it somewhat unattractive.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Not when its absolute. I've played a number of games with armor training rules (Alternity comes to mind, as does AGE) but they don't stop you from wearing armor you're not trained in if you want to; they just make it somewhat unattractive.

I don't think lack of proficiency should stop you either.

 

[Lanefan]

Under such a model the issue is more that weak attacks are overestimated. A teenager throwing a rock probably shouldn't be able to do hit point damage at all (unless they've got a proper weapon, ask Goliath). Housecats aren't a serious threat to adult humans. This just needs us to accept that the combat engine is an abstraction of a certain type of physical conflict and shouldn't be used outside of this.

How, then, can the game model the infliction and curing of injuries such as being shredded by a housecat or clonked in the head by someone throwing a rock? Because to a commoner, those can be serious; and IMO the game system is there to reflect everyone in the setting, not just adventurers.

Never mind that in my ideal game there wouldn't be much difference between commoners and 1st-level PCs anyway - as in, it'd be about the same amount of difference as between 1st and 2nd level - and obviously the game has to model for 1st-level PCs.

 

[Micah Sweet]

How, then, can the game model the infliction and curing of injuries such as being shredded by a housecat or clonked in the head by someone throwing a rock? Because to a commoner, those can be serious; and IMO the game system is there to reflect everyone in the setting, not just adventurers.

Never mind that in my ideal game there wouldn't be much difference between commoners and 1st-level PCs anyway - as in, it'd be about the same amount of difference as between 1st and 2nd level - and obviously the game has to model for 1st-level PCs.

A lot of people seem to think the rules of the game should only apply to adventurers or in direct relation to their activities. Honestly if that were the case I wouldn't bother with that game.

 

[Lanefan]

Oh, my 1st level commoner arms are testament to that and giving Her Ladyship medicines. I certainly wasn't in danger of my life though.

Not all injuries have to be life-threatening in order to count as injuries, though.

I mean, were I to badly mash my fingers in the car door my life wouldn't be in danger but my hammer-wielding prowess would be reduced for a few days; which in pure game-mechanics terms would mean my to-hit and damage are likely reduced.

 

[Lanefan]

Not when its absolute. I've played a number of games with armor training rules (Alternity comes to mind, as does AGE) but they don't stop you from wearing armor you're not trained in if you want to; they just make it somewhat unattractive.

As does D&D. I mean, in any edition a MU can put on plate mail if she wants to; she just can't cast spells in it.

 

[Gimby]

How, then, can the game model the infliction and curing of injuries such as being shredded by a housecat or clonked in the head by someone throwing a rock? Because to a commoner, those can be serious; and IMO the game system is there to reflect everyone in the setting, not just adventurers.

Never mind that in my ideal game there wouldn't be much difference between commoners and 1st-level PCs anyway - as in, it'd be about the same amount of difference as between 1st and 2nd level - and obviously the game has to model for 1st-level PCs.

In the same way that overland travel, time spend socialising and so on do not happen in initiative order, we just recognise that the combat engine does not handle all scenarios. Some things just don't need to be handled mechanically via the combat engine and can be handled purely through fictional position. Joran gets shredded by their cat and it informs their roleplaying (they may dress the wounds, seek healing, complain about the discomfort and so on) but is below the abstraction layer for combat. In much the same way as a paper cut doesn't need to do hit point damage.

Not all injuries have to be life-threatening in order to count as injuries, though.

I mean, were I to badly mash my fingers in the car door my life wouldn't be in danger but my hammer-wielding prowess would be reduced for a few days; which in pure game-mechanics terms would mean my to-hit and damage are likely reduced.

Right, and being hit in the arm by an axe in a way that's potentially life threatening should affect your hammer wielding prowess for even longer, but it never has in D&D.