Falling from Great Heights

[Mattachine]

Still, hit points take their function, Shidaku, even if they are not used in the same way.
Different mechanics to accomplish the same goal. Instead of driving to work, a friend picks you up in a hovercraft.

Eels optional.

 

[Aaron]

And how do they know this? If they fought them before (say at a lower level in the past), then sure, they have in-game experience and can judge based off of that. Otherwise, they are meta-gaming based on the assumption that all town guards are 3rd level (for example). But if you're traipsing through the woods when you're suddenly surrounded by 12 armed bandits you've never seen before, with crossbows raised and ready, should the characters not take pause?

Nope, unless you believe that a bunch of thugs in your neighborhood could act as a Delta Force team.

Because that's a reasonable base assumption? All characters start this way. Sure, characters could end up with magic or abilities to change their nature as they level, to become resilient to damage. But it could be argued just as easily that they don't get those magic items or choose those abilities/powers/feats as they level.

Unortunately, all the game rules point toward a third scenario: the PCs get unnaturally resilient because the get stronger and stronger. Nothing else.

And you are confirming this every time you say that you find many rules ridiculous, like the Snatch feat, or the coup de grace, and so on.

Why would they? It's a 4 year old kid to them. Unless they know it's a dragon in disguise. And unless it's a world of 4-year olds ripping people's throats out, they just won't be considered a threat. But in a world where arrows do kill, from 1st to 30th level, how can PCs not end up treating a dozen aimed arrows at them to not be any kind of threat?

1 bolt can't take down a high level PC, aside very rare circumstances, no matter the level of his opponent.

Crossbow bolts fired by a bunch of country bandits can't be a threat for high level PCs, unless the scenario ridiculously lacks in in-game coherence (i.e. ,those bandits could face the same menaces the PCs routinely face).

Because for me it's a lot more believable than a character taking 5 arrows to the heart and still running around and fighting as fresh as a daisy.

Maybe it's believable (?), but it's incoeherent with things like critical hits, bite-improved grab-swallow whole, and such attacks.

And by skill, and teamwork, and intelligent tactics, and powerful spells and abilities. Luck and fate play only a part in the whole.

Powerful abilities?

Ok, so, this means that they have only offensive powerful abilities?

Anything for defense, that could help them sustain damage no normal mortal man could sustain?

But don't take away the fact that the base assumption is and has always been that HPs do encompass all these other intangible qualities. Some of us have always played with HPs being this way.

Alas, the rules (in 3.5) tell us another story.

Every time you dismiss them as "no believable" you confirm my point.

It is quite amazing that this group of (likely) disparate people just happened to get together at just the right time to face these menaces, in the nick of time, and triumphed over every obstacle they ever faced.

Uh?

In my campaign my PCs are a squad of high-level trained soldiers, grown together.

Again, luck and fate are only parts of the whole. Of course a character knows what they can do. And I never said that these attacks miss, they obviously didn't, as that's a facter of THAC0/Defenses.

But how do you say that the heroes take a dozen deadly blows? Deadly implies, well, death is soon to follow. Otherwise, well, I guess the blow wasn't that deadly after all. Perhaps they ducked that deadly blow to the head and took it in the shoulder by instint and skill, or were lucky, or fate has other plans.

How do I say that the heroes take a dozen deadly blows?

Because they are deadly for anyone but them and other high level characters.

Pools of acid, litres of poison, bites of Trexs, critical hits taken by massive giants, dozens of boltes taken, fire breathed by ancient wyrm, being swallowed whole by gargantuan behemoths of any kind, boulders thrown by catapults ... and that's all before lunch.

Should I continue?

No, just like any living, breathing person, a PC should base their decisions on what they believe they are capable of, and how they perceive what's in front of them.[...] Arrows to the face can kill, maybe I should appraise the situation carefully.

1) Arrows to the face can kill you, not high level PCs.

2) If the PCs should base their decisions on what they believe they are capable of, and how they perceive what's in front of them, they should laugh at the country bandits, knowing they can face red dragons.

It's a matter of in-game coherence and logic, nothing else.

As for PCs ... well, that's what Death Saves are about.

Death saves for crossbow bolts?

Coup de grace rules have always been one of the unbelievable aspects of the game to me. And it's akin to the original topic of this thread.

So, we ended up with another rule that you don't accept.

We can count 3 of them by now (falling from great heights, the snatch feat, and now the coup de grace).

What about acid pools?

What about drinking barrels of deadly poison, that could kill a bull, but not a PC with the Steadfast determinaton feat and a high Fort save?

What about trex bites-improved grab-swallow whole?

What about crushing room traps?

Come on. Are you seriously trying to assert that the D&D rules system (at least in 3.5) could be used to support your game POV?

How many cases do I have to cite before you can admit that the game depicts hig level PCs in a different way in respect of what you would prefer them to be?

 

[pemerton]

HP or saving throws my occupy the same design space

That's not disagreeing with the post you're responding to - that's agreeing with it!

In 4e, a whole lot of other mechanical abilities fill this design space to - such as (pre-errata) Come and Get It, and (in my view) a lot of martial healing also. Also most minions.

No one is saying that the play in the same fashion as Fate Points. But they play the same functional role - of establishing "gaps" between the mechanics, read literally in terms of process simlations, and fictional outcome. To relate this to the topic - in a Fate Point game, if you spend a point to survive a fall you have to narrate what happened; in D&D, if because of your hp your survive the fall, you have to narrate what happened; and in both cases, the narration might have to go beyond the literal parameters of what's already been established via the mechanics in the fiction (eg as per Umbran's purple worm example, or the ledge or pool mentioned in the extract from the Basic rulebook).

Contrast a game, like Runequest or Classic Traveller, which has nothing in this design space.

 

[Hussar]

No, they're not.

Fate Points are player-controlled, nothing demands you spend one, nothing causes you to lose them. They are a metagame mechanic that allows a player to go beyond the whims of the dice. Saving throws and HP loss are entirely subject to the whims of the dice. These are not comparable mechanics. HP or saving throws my occupy the same design space, but if I park a Honda Accord in a parking space previously occupied by a Ford F250, that doesn't make my auto a pickup.

Yes and no.

As has been stated repeatedly in this thread, you most certainly can use HP as Fate Points. I challenge the 20 archers, knowing that by the ruleset we are using at the time, I cannot die, is essentially the same as burning a Fate Point (or whatever) that works the same way.

I jump off the cliff, knowing I'll survive, is no different than spending a Fate Point to add a soft fir tree at the bottom of the cliff to fall through, thus preventing my death.

If I have enough bonuses to a saving throw that I will only fail on a 1, I'm certainly going to behave differently than if I fail on a 15 or less. I've actually had players do that. Kinda funny story. His rogue found a trap. The DC for the trap was so high that he could only disarm it on a 19 or better. But, the resetting lightning bolt that shot out of the trap had a save DC so low, that he only failed on a 1.

He played the odds, but, unfortunately failed, and the character died, having set off the trap eight or ten times first.

I just about fell of my chair I was laughing so hard.

 

[Sunseeker]

Yes and no.

As has been stated repeatedly in this thread, you most certainly can use HP as Fate Points. I challenge the 20 archers, knowing that by the ruleset we are using at the time, I cannot die, is essentially the same as burning a Fate Point (or whatever) that works the same way.

I jump off the cliff, knowing I'll survive, is no different than spending a Fate Point to add a soft fir tree at the bottom of the cliff to fall through, thus preventing my death.

If I have enough bonuses to a saving throw that I will only fail on a 1, I'm certainly going to behave differently than if I fail on a 15 or less. I've actually had players do that. Kinda funny story. His rogue found a trap. The DC for the trap was so high that he could only disarm it on a 19 or better. But, the resetting lightning bolt that shot out of the trap had a save DC so low, that he only failed on a 1.

He played the odds, but, unfortunately failed, and the character died, having set off the trap eight or ten times first.

I just about fell of my chair I was laughing so hard.

No, your examples are of abusing the rules that were never designed to scale in the way you're using them. Fate Points allow you to adjust the results of a given action. Jumping off a cliff because the rules for fall damage don't scale with character HP is just abusing the system. It's NOT the same, it may result in a similar outcome, but similar outcomes does not in ANY way prove similar methods. This is the typical lay-science that is so popular today, you are putting the conclusion(surviving the fall) before the theory.

That's not disagreeing with the post you're responding to - that's agreeing with it!

In 4e, a whole lot of other mechanical abilities fill this design space to - such as (pre-errata) Come and Get It, and (in my view) a lot of martial healing also. Also most minions.

No one is saying that the play in the same fashion as Fate Points. But they play the same functional role - of establishing "gaps" between the mechanics, read literally in terms of process simlations, and fictional outcome. To relate this to the topic - in a Fate Point game, if you spend a point to survive a fall you have to narrate what happened; in D&D, if because of your hp your survive the fall, you have to narrate what happened; and in both cases, the narration might have to go beyond the literal parameters of what's already been established via the mechanics in the fiction (eg as per Umbran's purple worm example, or the ledge or pool mentioned in the extract from the Basic rulebook).

Contrast a game, like Runequest or Classic Traveller, which has nothing in this design space.

Lets go back to my car analogy. On Friday, Parking Lot A is filled with Fords, while Parking Lot B is filled with Hondas. A&B are both Parking Lots, and they are both filled with cars. But are Fords and Hondas the same thing? No.

So if I have two designs with the same spaces, why then are you suggesting that because the space is taken up by something wholly unsimilar, that they must be the same because they occupy the same space? How is that logic or reasoning?

Here's a great saying "Shady things are not to be trusted, trees are shady, so trees are not to be trusted." There are two words here, with the same spelling and the same pronunciation that mean completely different things. Being in the same spot, or looking similar does not mean they serve the same function, does not mean they work the same way, does not mean ANY of the things you're attempting to prove here.

D&D HP may represent a lot of things, and what that represents is up to personal rationalization. But D&D HP is NOT, in any way shape or form, a stand-in for Fate Points. Fate Points allow the player to adjust a given outcome independent from table mechanics, HP does not do this. HP is not Fate Points.

 

[pemerton]

So if I have two designs with the same spaces, why then are you suggesting that because the space is taken up by something wholly unsimilar, that they must be the same because they occupy the same space?

No one is saying they are literally the same. In a part of my post that I quoted, I even said that "No one is saying that the play in the same fashion." I am not entirely sure on the criteria for identity of game rules (when they fall short of being expressed in formally identical ways) but playing in the same way is probably among them.

The point, rather, is that the two mechanics occupy the same space. So that, when a high level PC with no shield or cover survives being attacked by a dozen skilled archers because s/he has so many hp, the relationship between mechanics and fiction is something like when a PC in a fate point game who has no shield or cover survives being attacked by a dozen skilled archers because the player of that PC spends a fate point. In both cases, the narrative established by the mechancis - "A dozen skill archers shot at your PC, and you survived despite your lack of shield and cover" - may stand in need of supplementation in some fashion for it to be clear in the fiction what happened. Did all the archers missed because the gods intervened and turned their aims? Did the PC duck or deflect all the arrows?

Similarly for surving the fall. In both cases, where many hp or expenditure of a fate point results in survival, the fiction as established by the mechanics goes "Your PC jumped over a cliff, and despite falling 100' s/he survived to run away." How did s/he survive? The mechanics on their own - be they hp or fate points - don't tell us.

In some fate point mechanics, it may be incumbent upon the player who wants to spend the point to first stipulate, in the fiction, how his/her PC is surviving: "I spend a fate point to make the archers miss;" or, "I spend a fate point to land on a ledge, or in a pool at the bottom of the cliff." But this is not true of all such systems (eg it is not true in HARP, and is not always true in Burning Wheel). Hit points are more like this second sort of approach: the mechanics don't require explaining what has happened in the fiction, but leave it open for the table to fill the narrative gap, or not, as the mood and the need take them. (Likewise with 4e powers like pre-errata Come and Get It or Inspiring Word.)

Being in the same spot, or looking similar does not mean they serve the same function, does not mean they work the same way, does not mean ANY of the things you're attempting to prove here.

My gut feel is that, given that "design space" in a game is more-or-less defined in terms of function, proving that two mechanical elements occupy the same space means proving that they serve the same function.

But even if that general claim is false (like I said, it's just a gut feel on my part), my argument that the two mechanics occupy the same functional space is the one stated in [MENTION=6678226]Mattachine[/MENTION]'s original post, plus the post of mine that you quoted, and that I have now reiterated above - like fate points, hit points operate to create a gap within the fiction that has been established via the mechanics. "That PC was shot by 12 skilled archers, and yet survived? What happened?" "That PC fell 100' down a cliff, yet survived? How?"

Note again that in games with no mechanic in this functional space - like Runequest, or Classic Traveller - this sort of question never arises. If a PC survives the shots of 12 skilled archers or a fall of 100', the mechanics themselves explain how, in the fiction, this stange event occurred: improbably enough, for example, his/her armour deflected all the arrows; improbably enough, for example, the fall only broke his/her legs.

D&D HP may represent a lot of things, and what that represents is up to personal rationalization.

Obviously this characterisation of hit points is not uncontentious. It's at odds with the "hp = meat" school of thought. But I think that school of thought was not so prevalent until 3E (the original AD&D rulebooks had lengthy passages devoted to dispelling it).

It's also at odds with the "hp = dodging" school of thought, which the 3E rulebooks hint at, and which was probably also a fairly popular school of thought in classic D&D play. But that school of thought has always had trouble explaining how hit points work outside of melee (ie outside contexts where a level-dependent dodging ability makes sense).

But that's part of Mattachine's point, I believe: if you want a more process-simulationist game, in which hp don't lead to gaps within the fiction that have to be retrosectively narrated shut, then you are adopting the same sort of approach to play as a game like RQ or Traveller that has no fate point mechanic. You can treat hp as dodging, and have to use some sort of variant massive damage rule, or wound and vitality systems, or modified coup-de-grace rule, or whatever it might be, to produce "gapless" fiction in which no one survives 12 arrows at point blank range, nor a 100' fall; or you can go the way that I believe Aaron and Triqui are going in this thread, of treating hp as meat - PCs survive 12 arrows at point blank range, and 100' falls, simply because they are tough enough to do so.

The point of the "hit points are a version of fate points" claim (or, to use the language of AD&D, the claim that they represent luck, divine favour etc) is not to elide the obvious differences you note between fate points and hit points, but to draw attention to a way in which hit points can work as written, without the need for new mechanics, but equally without requiring a "hit points = meat" approach.

D&D HP is NOT, in any way shape or form, a stand-in for Fate Points. Fate Points allow the player to adjust a given outcome independent from table mechanics, HP does not do this. HP is not Fate Points.

I don't understand your phrase "independent from table mechanics". Fate points are part of the mechanics used at any given table. In a game like HeroWars/Quest, they are integral to action resolution - the action resolution mechanics cannot be stated without reference to "bumping" via Hero Point expenditure.

It's a given that, unlike fate points, hit points don't require a player choice to expend them. It's as if the button saying "Do you want to spend a fate point to avert that consequence for your PC?" was switched permanently to ON.

It's a given that, unlike fate points in (say) HARP (but not in, say, HeroWars/Quest), the action resolution mechanic in D&D can't be stated without reference to hit points.

The mechanics are not identical. They don't play the same way. But they serve the same function: of ensuring PC survival, by creating gaps within the fiction established by the mechanics. Although the situation seems to be one of certain death, something - the mechanics on their own don't tell us what - has occurred which resulted in the PC's survival.

(To use some jargon: both fate points and (under this interpretation) hit points are "fortune in the middle" mechanics.)

 

[Hussar]

/snip

Lets go back to my car analogy. On Friday, Parking Lot A is filled with Fords, while Parking Lot B is filled with Hondas. A&B are both Parking Lots, and they are both filled with cars. But are Fords and Hondas the same thing? No.
/snip

Well, at the risk of torturing an analogy, I would say that they're pretty darn close. Four wheels, used for the same purpose (transportation), largely made from similar materials, based on the same principles. Yeah, for all intents and purposes, I'd say they are the same.

The difference between the two comes down to preference and little else.

Which is pretty much what you're saying about HP and Fate Points. Both systems allow the player to choose actions which would normally be impossible given the in game reality. The player of the hero with buckets of HP can do impossible things because he knows that he will survive. The player of the hero with Fate Points can do impossible things because he knows he will survive.

The end result is largely the same.

I think the issue here is one of immersion. If I'm not mistaken, shidaku, you want HP to be a purely in-game element. Characters don't do impossible things, because doing them would get you killed and the characters should know that. Players don't act on meta-game knowledge, because that would break immersion.

I think Permerton and I are coming at this from the position that HP are a purely meta-game mechanic, similar to Fate Points. A character never really has 100 HP. He has 3 HP and 97 fate points. Thus the combination of luck and meat. And, because the player knows that he has 97 fate points, he's free to act in whatever manner he wants, because the fate points are not a point of immersion for him.

 

[pemerton]

I think Permerton and I are coming at this from the position that HP are a purely meta-game mechanic, similar to Fate Points. A character never really has 100 HP. He has 3 HP and 97 fate points. Thus the combination of luck and meat. And, because the player knows that he has 97 fate points, he's free to act in whatever manner he wants, because the fate points are not a point of immersion for him.

Agreed.

But even the metagaming can be brought in game if you want to think of the luck and divine favour as something the PC and other inhabitants of the gameworld are aware of ("He must be loved by the Raven Queen, to have survived that fall!).

I think the issue here is one of immersion. If I'm not mistaken, shidaku, you want HP to be a purely in-game element. Characters don't do impossible things, because doing them would get you killed and the characters should know that. Players don't act on meta-game knowledge, because that would break immersion.

I think this just reinforces the functional resemblance of hit points to fate points.

In a game with fate points, the players will take risk in reliance on their knowledge that they can spend points to blunt the consequences. That is part of the point of a fate point mechanic. And hps have the same effect on play - players will take risks, like having their PCs recklessly charge the 12 archers, because they know they have enough hit points to soak the damage.

 

[Mattachine]

Hit points are a mechanic that allow PCs to survive what would otherwise be fatal incidents. That is the same design space, so to speak, as Fate points.

Players take risks with their PCs in relation to, among other things, their hit points.

 

[Balesir]

I recently read a (somewhat refreshing) article that proposed that roleplaying games are, at root, simple "let's pretend" with some rules. Like "cowboys and indians", but with written rules and randomisers.

"Bang! You're dead!"

Hit points are "fate points" that are restricted to saying, in this situation, "No, I'm not!"

Player 1: "I hit you with my sword - you're dead!"
Player 2: (spends required hit points) "No, I'm not!"

...and so on, until, eventually:

Player 1: "I hit you with my sword - you're dead!"
Player 2: (finds s/he does not have the required number of hit points) "Oh, yes - it seems I am!" (may or may not do over-dramatic fall to the floor)...