Abstract HP

[xechnao]

I am not usually someone who uses the "quoted for truth" post, but I can't help it.

I think one additional thing about houserules for wounding is that they also tend to have their own quirkiness associated with them that can make them seem just as unreasonable in different situations. Beyond that, the systems that seem to be the most realistic turn out to be just as unrealistic when you look at studies about combat and injury.

Give me some HP and let's get on with the game.

--Steve

What is the point of this post? That d&d HPs is and will be the best rpg mechanic of what it is trying to simulate so no worth talking or thinking about anything else?

 

[Daniel D. Fox]

What is the point of this post? That d&d HPs is and will be the best rpg mechanic of what it is trying to simulate so no worth talking or thinking about anything else?

Stop kneejerking. He's simply supporting the idea behind an abstract system, that in many people's minds, doesn't need hard rules tied to it.

 

[Glyfair]

So now we've got to ask, why does the correct defintion of this very basic game term have so much trouble catching on with people? Is it because the definition just isn't trumpeted loudly enough in the rules? Is it mechanics that occasionally treat HP like physical toughness alone? Is it terminology like "hit" and "damage"? Just the fact that people like the idea of unreasonably-increasing physical toughness? Or that taking "26 points of damage" sounds like it ought to be a serious, bloody wound, regardless of how many hit points the target has left?

All of the above, I'd guess.

I agree. As mentioned above, I think it's largely that there has been a lack of emphasis. The rules have mentioned it (and Gygax has discussed it in a few articles in The Dragon), but you didn't see much more than that.

DMs really don't tend to emphasize it. When someone is hit for damage in combat I have seen pretty much two approaches. The first is the gamist "you take 10 hit points of damage." The second is the descriptive "He hits you with his sword drawing first blood, take 10 points of damage." I can count on one hand the number of times I've heard something like "He presses his attack and you can feel the tide of the battle swinging in his direction. Take 10 hit points of damage."

 

[Dausuul]

So now we've got to ask, why does the correct defintion of this very basic game term have so much trouble catching on with people? Is it because the definition just isn't trumpeted loudly enough in the rules? Is it mechanics that occasionally treat HP like physical toughness alone? Is it terminology like "hit" and "damage"? Just the fact that people like the idea of unreasonably-increasing physical toughness? Or that taking "26 points of damage" sounds like it ought to be a serious, bloody wound, regardless of how many hit points the target has left?

First of all, because it's a crappy definition. It's a vague handwavey thing. You can't sum it up in one quick sentence the way you can with virtually any other key statistic (except Armor Class, but that has its own problems); which means that when people are first learning D&D, they're apt to boil hit points down to their most obvious meaning, which is, "Hit points are how tough you are."

Second, they fluff it as representing all these abstract things, but then they go ahead and treat it like pure physical injury in the actual rules. Examples:

"Rider" effects on attacks, that only trigger if the attack inflicts damage (e.g., poison, energy drain). This implies that any attack which inflicts damage has actually connected and caused a wound--none of this "near-miss" business.
Environmental hazards which do a given amount of damage per round. This implies that damage is independent of character; that is, 10 points of damage to Joe Commoner and 10 points of damage to Thorzod Tarrasquebane means they're taking the same amount of "punishment." Thorzod may soak it better, but he's getting hit just as hard.
Healing magic which heals a given amount of damage. This implies that 10 points of damage represents the same degree of injury regardless of whether Joe or Thorzod suffered it. Plus, of course, it's called "heal," not "restore your mystical defense abstraction."
Natural healing is on a daily basis. This implies that hit points represent real injury, since you don't recover any hit points by taking a five-minute rest break.
Hit points do not change regardless of character status. If you're paralyzed or unconscious, you keep all your hit points. This implies that the ability to consciously dodge and defend is not a factor in your hit point total.
Constitution affects your hit points, but Wisdom and Dexterity do not. This implies that being physically durable is important to determining your hit point total, but willpower, perception, and quick reflexes are irrelevant.

Some of these are "corner cases," but many of them are not. True, you don't encounter poison in every fight, or even in most fights. How many fights do you encounter healing magic in or after? Oh, yes--all of them (at least for a typical 3E game). How often do you apply your Constitution modifier when calculating hit points? Every time you calculate your hit points. If you don't want to think about what hit points mean, that's fine, but as soon as you start taking a serious look at them, you'll run into huge problems.

Ultimately, it is far, far simpler to explain hit points as "your character is crazy tough" and ignore all the half-assed efforts to cram other stuff in there. Everything in the rules, from 1E through 3.5E, has supported that view. (In fact, as far as I know, 3E has never even tried to claim that hit points mean anything other than raw toughness.)

I'm hoping 4e does a better job of reminding people what their HP pool and damage rolls actually represent, since the general slant of its mechanics seems to really depend on that proper definition a whole lot more than past editions.

I just hope the mechanics are consistent with whatever definition they settle on. If they want hit points to represent all this other stuff, then that needs to be factored into the rules.

 

[xechnao]

Stop kneejerking. He's simply supporting the idea behind an abstract system, that in many people's minds, doesn't need hard rules tied to it.

This is a generalization. Where exactly does the difference lie among an abstract system and hard rules?

This is not the point or the right way to see this thread IMO. The OP's problem seems to be that the system of HPs does not make sense in some cases -abstract or not. And I bet that there could be made another "abstract" or whatever system that satisfies his needs.

 

[Daniel D. Fox]

The beauty of d20 is that most of the rules are fairly modular. If someone is disatisfied with the way the rules are written, you can houserule them to change them or simply adopt another system.

I don't see the issue whatsoever.

 

[Dausuul]

The beauty of d20 is that most of the rules are fairly modular. If someone is disatisfied with the way the rules are written, you can houserule them to change them or simply adopt another system.

I don't see the issue whatsoever.

While arguably true in general, this is mind-bogglingly far from applying to the current discussion. We're talking about hit points, not some prestige class out of a third-party splatbook. This is one of the most important mechanics in the game, and it is used virtually everywhere. Changing the way hit points work would require overhauling the entire ruleset from start to finish.

 

[apoptosis]

The best explanation of hp that I know is :

"hp evaluate the degree of script immunity of a character. "

This is probably the best definition. Some games actually even develop this into their mechanics.

Shadow of Yesterday has a Harm tracker. Harm can be physical, mental or social. It is basically narrative damage, meaning that points on the Harm tracker prevent your character from being as successful in the specific arena (mental, physical or social), basically it is associated with having penalties to perform certain actions, and that having your Harm tracker filled means that your adversary gets their way (if it is a physical fight to the death..then you are dead).

If HP are physical they either have to stay low and not raise much (or at all) when characters level or you have to accept that characters really are physically resistant to orbital re-entry.

 

[xechnao]

The beauty of d20 is that most of the rules are fairly modular. If someone is disatisfied with the way the rules are written, you can houserule them to change them or simply adopt another system.

I don't see the issue whatsoever.

The issue is that one is coming to discuss about something he is not satisfied with and people seeming to argue that he should be satisfied instead or that he couldn't be more satisfied with a change.

 

[The Human Target]

First of all, because it's a crappy definition. It's a vague handwavey thing. You can't sum it up in one quick sentence the way you can with virtually any other key statistic (except Armor Class, but that has its own problems); which means that when people are first learning D&D, they're apt to boil hit points down to their most obvious meaning, which is, "Hit points are how tough you are."

Second, they fluff it as representing all these abstract things, but then they go ahead and treat it like pure physical injury in the actual rules. Examples:

"Rider" effects on attacks, that only trigger if the attack inflicts damage (e.g., poison, energy drain). This implies that any attack which inflicts damage has actually connected and caused a wound--none of this "near-miss" business.
Environmental hazards which do a given amount of damage per round. This implies that damage is independent of character; that is, 10 points of damage to Joe Commoner and 10 points of damage to Thorzod Tarrasquebane means they're taking the same amount of "punishment." Thorzod may soak it better, but he's getting hit just as hard.
Healing magic which heals a given amount of damage. This implies that 10 points of damage represents the same degree of injury regardless of whether Joe or Thorzod suffered it. Plus, of course, it's called "heal," not "restore your mystical defense abstraction."
Natural healing is on a daily basis. This implies that hit points represent real injury, since you don't recover any hit points by taking a five-minute rest break.
Hit points do not change regardless of character status. If you're paralyzed or unconscious, you keep all your hit points. This implies that the ability to consciously dodge and defend is not a factor in your hit point total.
Constitution affects your hit points, but Wisdom and Dexterity do not. This implies that being physically durable is important to determining your hit point total, but willpower, perception, and quick reflexes are irrelevant.

Some of these are "corner cases," but many of them are not. True, you don't encounter poison in every fight, or even in most fights. How many fights do you encounter healing magic in or after? Oh, yes--all of them (at least for a typical 3E game). How often do you apply your Constitution modifier when calculating hit points? Every time you calculate your hit points. If you don't want to think about what hit points mean, that's fine, but as soon as you start taking a serious look at them, you'll run into huge problems.

Ultimately, it is far, far simpler to explain hit points as "your character is crazy tough" and ignore all the half-assed efforts to cram other stuff in there. Everything in the rules, from 1E through 3.5E, has supported that view. (In fact, as far as I know, 3E has never even tried to claim that hit points mean anything other than raw toughness.)

I just hope the mechanics are consistent with whatever definition they settle on. If they want hit points to represent all this other stuff, then that needs to be factored into the rules.

Ding ding!

Winnah!

You just saved me several minutes of typing, and I thank you.