Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Are Hit Points Meat? (Redux): D&D Co-Creator Saw Hit Points Very Differently
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8439584" data-attributes="member: 6790260"><p>If "Well, don't do that" actually solved all that many problems, people would not say that "common sense isn't so common."</p><p></p><p>Getting people not to <em>believe</em> a thing they've believed for a very long time is very difficult. Making it so the thing they believe is true <em>is in fact true</em> is relatively easy in this case, since human designers can decide what the thing in question is. (It is often <em>not</em> easy; there's a reason we have mathematical "paradoxes" that are actually just true but confounding facts, such as Simpson's paradox or the medical test paradox.)</p><p></p><p>Though I freely grant that this option doesn't cost me anything, and thus there's probably some bias toward it there, it really does seem to be a pretty straightforward issue. People have not <em>behaved</em> as though they believe level 1 is supposed to be particularly fragile, the books do not <em>describe</em> level 1 as being particularly fragile,* and designers and the 1st-level adventures they write are not <em>structured</em> as though 1st-level characters are particularly fragile. With things stacked so thoroughly on the "1st level is supposed to be ADVENTURE!" side, something that's been ongoing for decades and possibly even before WotC took over the brand, I just don't see how it's reasonable to say that we will have an easier time convincing players and (primarily) DMs that they've been wrong this whole time.</p><p></p><p>It just seems really blatantly, dramatically easier to admit that what the game has been <em>designed</em> to be (in every edition except 4e) simply isn't how people <em>actually play</em> D&D, and thus design the game people clearly want to play instead of insisting that everyone else correct their behavior to what the game is designed for.</p><p></p><p>*Consider that the 5e PHB explicitly says that people who are fighters have experience already. Under the heading "Trained for Danger," it says (emphasis added), "Not every member of the city watch, the village militia, or the queen's army is a fighter. Most of these troops are relatively untrained soldiers with only the most basic combat knowledge. <em>Veteran soldiers, military officers, trained bodyguards, dedicated knights, and similar figures are fighters.</em>" The book ain't tellin' you you're some wet-behind-the-ears greenhorn.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 8439584, member: 6790260"] If "Well, don't do that" actually solved all that many problems, people would not say that "common sense isn't so common." Getting people not to [I]believe[/I] a thing they've believed for a very long time is very difficult. Making it so the thing they believe is true [I]is in fact true[/I] is relatively easy in this case, since human designers can decide what the thing in question is. (It is often [I]not[/I] easy; there's a reason we have mathematical "paradoxes" that are actually just true but confounding facts, such as Simpson's paradox or the medical test paradox.) Though I freely grant that this option doesn't cost me anything, and thus there's probably some bias toward it there, it really does seem to be a pretty straightforward issue. People have not [I]behaved[/I] as though they believe level 1 is supposed to be particularly fragile, the books do not [I]describe[/I] level 1 as being particularly fragile,* and designers and the 1st-level adventures they write are not [I]structured[/I] as though 1st-level characters are particularly fragile. With things stacked so thoroughly on the "1st level is supposed to be ADVENTURE!" side, something that's been ongoing for decades and possibly even before WotC took over the brand, I just don't see how it's reasonable to say that we will have an easier time convincing players and (primarily) DMs that they've been wrong this whole time. It just seems really blatantly, dramatically easier to admit that what the game has been [I]designed[/I] to be (in every edition except 4e) simply isn't how people [I]actually play[/I] D&D, and thus design the game people clearly want to play instead of insisting that everyone else correct their behavior to what the game is designed for. *Consider that the 5e PHB explicitly says that people who are fighters have experience already. Under the heading "Trained for Danger," it says (emphasis added), "Not every member of the city watch, the village militia, or the queen's army is a fighter. Most of these troops are relatively untrained soldiers with only the most basic combat knowledge. [I]Veteran soldiers, military officers, trained bodyguards, dedicated knights, and similar figures are fighters.[/I]" The book ain't tellin' you you're some wet-behind-the-ears greenhorn. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Are Hit Points Meat? (Redux): D&D Co-Creator Saw Hit Points Very Differently
Top