Hit points as luck

[darjr]

Just a surface level response here.

Giving the player the choice to spend HP to avoid other issues is a neat idea.

Thank you for that!

 

[Celebrim]

Sure, by “luck” I would be happy to mean “any version of luck, experience, magical blessing, and other form of plot protection you think works for the character and the game.”

It makes a difference because a fighter's supernatural skill to slip blows is harder to squeeze into being every other resource in the game than generic "luck". Which, is probably a good thing. You'd not want hit points to be that fungible. You'd want more like, "I can spend 4 hit points to do 6 points of extra damage if my next attack hits." siloed behind something that implied you were a higher level character and you could overexert yourself deliberately to deal psychotic damage to your foes. You'd definitely want to use this only in the context of "gambling" mechanically, and with a certain color and limitations to it.

As for your source, I think there is a difference in saying that D&D's combat was inspired by things like Errol Flynn movies and saying they were intended as process simulation for Errol Flynn movies. I feel like this guy is quoting one conversation he had with Gary that is true as far as it goes, in that Gary didn't like wound charts and did like the cinematic/narrative feel of hit points, but that doesn't mean Gary was exactly going for that one fight as process simulation. D&D as Gary imagined it involved the two fighters getting in more nicks and superficial flesh wounds before the final blow occurred than you could get by the 1930s Hollywood censors (though several things could plausibly imply hit point loss, such as both men stumbling over from blows and near the end Robin clutches his side as if nicked, and possibly shows signs of injury to the brow occurred sometime in the fight before the death blow to Guy). Actual process simulation of that fight would play more slowly and be less gritty than what I think actually plays out in D&D, with active defenses (parry rolls) and more rock/paper/scissors with revealed strategies and tactical choices (and probably some fumbles). That's something like I think Burning Wheel was going for, albeit I don't think BW succeeded really either.

 

[DEFCON 1]

IMO examples of those "narrative points" determined after the fact would include any situation in which the damage type is relevant via the rules (poison is the most famous case), and anytime a creature reaches 0 hit points.

Sure! Good starting point and oftentimes would be worthwhile... but it never needs to be a hard and fast rule. If someone gets hit with a Poison attack first round and then an Acid attack second round and then a Radiant attack third... the one that causes the most damage or came off a crit or was the killing blow or had a failed save or some other major factor would probably be the one that gets used as the exemplifier of what happened in the fight after the fact. So it probably ends up being results oriented as opposed to specific attack type oriented.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Sure! Good starting point and oftentimes would be worthwhile... but it never needs to be a hard and fast rule. If someone gets hit with a Poison attack first round and then an Acid attack second round and then a Radiant attack third... the one that causes the most damage or came off a crit or was the killing blow or had a failed save or some other major factor would probably be the one that gets used as the exemplifier of what happened in the fight after the fact. So it probably ends up being results oriented as opposed to specific attack type oriented.

I get what you're saying, but as I've said before, personally I need damage types to matter if the rules make them matter.