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".

 

[Charlaquin]

True, but that's not my point.

My point is that "a tiny scratch" represents meat.

So? The loss of hit points doesn’t have to represent the tiny scratch. It could represent the expenditure of energy, good fortune, divine favor, or whatever, that allowed you to avoid getting that tiny scratch, which might otherwise have killed you. Whereas, a weapon that is not poisoned doesn’t take as much energy, good fortune, divine favor, or whatever to avoid taking a potentially lethal blow from, since it takes a lot more than a tiny scratch from such a weapon to be potentially lethal.

 

[Ravenbrook]

I would think that luck is represented by a character's saving throw. I find it very annoying that a high-levvel fighter can stand straight in the blast of an adult dragon's breath weapon and survive despite failing the saving throw. Not only that, but the character can then go on fighting without suffering from any penalties.

 

[Mercurius]

Given the numbers involved, especially in WotC editions, there's no way that HP accurately represent meat only, and that's pretty much been the case since the beginning, even more so so in recent editions. It is a false controversy, or rather one only in the minds of those who try to cram everything into a "simulationist" paradigm.

The whole system is based upon it being an abstraction. If you wanted to make HP into meat only, then you'd have to change the core game substantially. For instance, you'd probably have to split AC into Damage Reduction (armor) and Defense (something akin to Reflex in 4E), with "Meat Points" being a combination of CON, STR, maybe a racial modifier, and then a Size multiple.

It wouldn't be impossible to use an optional system, but would take some finessing, and avoiding damage would be the name of the game, whether through having a high Defense and/or good armor (DR).

 

[Lyxen]

I would think that luck is represented by a character's saving throw. I find it very annoying that a high-levvel fighter can stand straight in the blast of an adult dragon's breath weapon and survive despite failing the saving throw. Not only that, but the character can then go on fighting without suffering from any penalties.

It's in the save, but it is clearly in the fact of not being hit, just as training, the will to live or divine favor are also possibly in the saving throw. It being in one does not preclude it being in the other.

 

[Lyxen]

So? The loss of hit points doesn’t have to represent the tiny scratch. It could represent the expenditure of energy, good fortune, divine favor, or whatever, that allowed you to avoid getting that tiny scratch, which might otherwise have killed you. Whereas, a weapon that is not poisoned doesn’t take as much energy, good fortune, divine favor, or whatever to avoid taking a potentially lethal blow from, since it takes a lot more than a tiny scratch from such a weapon to be potentially lethal.

I completely agree, it also allows for the necessary flexibility to describe the loss of hit points from very various sources on very different individuals, from the muscle/meat bag to the wiry thief or priest.

 

[Morrus]

If getting stabbed for 1d4 damage the equivalent of me being stabbed in the real world?

Nah, the real world doesn't have hit points. They don't simulate real life in any way whatsoever.

 

[GreyLord]

Was Arneson's Adventures in Fantasy also using a 3-18 bell curve to generate stats? If yes, then most characters wouldn't be able to take a solid blow from anything.

Example: let's be generous and assume that on a 3-18 curve the character has 15-15-15 on those three stats. So, rounding up as suggested, 15/2 = 8, 15/3 = 5, and 15/4 = 4. In the next step, 8 + 5 + 4 = 17; dividing that by 5 gives 3.4, which rounds up to 4 if the round-up suggestion is to be taken to the full.

Something is very amiss here...

It's because, I believe Hit points also meant something slightly different. Instead of having variable damage, it all did one point of damage. Thus, if you had 3 hitpoints it means you could take 3 hits and then you would be down and out.

 

[Lyxen]

Nah, the real world doesn't have hit points. They don't simulate real life in any way whatsoever.

That's the important point. One could argue that "meat hit point" like the ones from Runequest want to simulate normal life (they are I think correctly based on size as well as constitution). But D&D's hit points simulate heroic fantasy and even high fantasy, the books/movies/shows of the genre where the heroes continue to fight at full capacity until knocked down, and even that is extremely rarely fatal, despite looking deadly almost every time. Not realistic in the slightest.

 

[schneeland]

After 30+ years of gaming I've never been able to reconcile hit points and what they actually mean. If it's just narrative luck points then how does healing work? It just recharges your luck points. If getting stabbed for 1d4 damage the equivalent of me being stabbed in the real world? i.e. Does it leave a bleeding wound? I stopped asking these questions long ago because I could never find a satisfactory answer.

I'm mostly in the same position, except for being too stubborn to fully stop being annoyed by them .
To be fair: up to 3e I was fine with treating them as meat points in the action hero sense ("it's just a flesh wound").

 

[Ravenbrook]

It's because, I believe Hit points also meant something slightly different. Instead of having variable damage, it all did one point of damage. Thus, if you had 3 hitpoints it means you could take 3 hits and then you would be down and out.

That's interesting because it seems to be a similar concept as in Savage Worlds.