Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Snarf Zagyg" data-source="post: 9219466" data-attributes="member: 7023840">Instead of creating a lengthy new post, I am going to post this addendum to my prior post.The interesting thing, IMO, about the history of hit points in D&D is that it speaks to the original bifurcation of the idea. As originally conceived by Arneson, hit points were a measure of "meat." Sure, PCs would get a little extra meat to make them more able to survive, but the amount of hit points you had was fixed at first level, never to increase. Instead, you had an opportunity to reduce incoming damage, either through "damage saving throws" (that would increase in level) or with "armor saving throws" (that would increase with different armor). Still, the name hit points, constituting the number of "hits" your character could take, make perfect sense in terms of the game. This type of system still exists in certain other RPGs, where you have an attribute that roughly matches your, um, meat (WFRPG comes to mind). Notably, this changed with Gygax. He intuitively understood the appeal of the play loop that kept people coming back for more - you got better as you increased in level. One of the things he changed was that he had hit points increase in level. This had a number of positive effects in terms of the game- it streamlined the combats (no need for constant saves). It made combat something that was more "fun" in terms of being able to plan for it (less swingy, more tactical). And it kept the reward loop more interesting for levelling. In terms of a game mechanic, it was brilliant. Arguably, it's one of the reasons that D&D was so successful compared to other games, and that mechanic has been copied extensively in other RPGs and in videogames.And yet ... it always seemed that Gygax was vaguely uncomfortable with it as well. I think this can be partly chalked up the the falling out with Arneson. As retold in various sources (especially through Jon Peterson), Arneson would complain that Gygax didn't adhere to his vision- including hit points and hit location (provided in Blackmoor supplement). Which is why you would have Gygax simultaneously talk about the abstract nature of combat and hit points on the one hand (which can be read a rebuttal to what Arneson was saying), while at the same time constantly using reference to the meat aspects of hit points on the other (such as recovery times, and curing spells, etc.) while also providing all sorts of additional complicated rules for combat that were often unused (weapon v. ac, grappling, parrying, hits v. helmets, the whole initiative system, etc.). The reason that the divide exists today is because the divide was baked into the game from the beginning.</blockquote>

Verification