Hits, misses and hit point loss in REH's Conan

[pemerton]

I know it's a D&D discussion, but it also seems to be a discussion about the different ways HP can work. I chose to think outside the Red Box and illustrate a method which others may not be familiar with as a way to introduce different concepts so as to give a broader range of ideas to consider. I also chose a method which (imo) did the best job of illustrating the scene. I'm a D&D player who is also an avid R. Howard fan; I've often struggled to reconcile the two.

I've never played GURPS.

Rolemaster has active defence in the form of parrying, but is a bit weak on dodging. HARP does do dodging, and I think could model this scene fairly well. (Both RM and HARP have wound mechanics that would reflect the wound to Conan fine.)

 

[Argyle King]

I've never played GURPS.

Rolemaster has active defence in the form of parrying, but is a bit weak on dodging. HARP does do dodging, and I think could model this scene fairly well. (Both RM and HARP have wound mechanics that would reflect the wound to Conan fine.)

In GURPS, you can parry, dodge, or block. Block requires a shield though. A retreating dodge is one of the dodge options.

 

[Savage Wombat]

So I guess that, since none of those seven blows actually hit me, I didn't take any damage from the poison then. Or from the magic sword's wounding effect.

I agree with the "luck/skill" point of view on HP, but it seems to me that you guys are just ignoring the other side's argument altogether.

 

[Greatwyrm]

I'm not really invested in either side of the argument. But the voice in my head that sounds like a crabby old man keeps saying, "They aren't called Miss Points, ya dern kids!"

 

[pemerton]

So I guess that, since none of those seven blows actually hit me, I didn't take any damage from the poison then. Or from the magic sword's wounding effect.

In these cases you'd have to narrate differently. I think that's fairly obvious.

This came up in my 4e game a couple of weeks ago when a PC was hit by a bugbear assassin firing poisoned quarrels.

Those hits weren't narrated as lucky escapes.

 

[Savage Wombat]

In these cases you'd have to narrate differently. I think that's fairly obvious.

But then you lack narrative consistency. My character, with his lightning quickness and magic rapier, is capable of knocking aside crossbow quarrels with a twist of his wrist - unless they're poisoned.

Easier just to say, in all cases, that your superior luck/skill turns a hit into an almost-miss; a mere scratch instead of a bloody wound.

 

[pemerton]

But then you lack narrative consistency. My character, with his lightning quickness and magic rapier, is capable of knocking aside crossbow quarrels with a twist of his wrist - unless they're poisoned.

Where's the inconsistency? "Capable of" does not imply "never fails to".

Your PC was, and remains, capable of knocking aside those quarrels. But on this occassion s/he didn't, and hence got poisoned.

Now if very many arrows or quarrels in the game are poisoned, and your swashbuckler PC is routinely targeted by them, and the GM is not rolling very many misses with those attacks, then the narrative might start to look a bit wonky - the facts of play no longer bear out your account of your PC as a deft deflector of arrows.

In my own game that problem doesn't arise, because not many arrows or quarrels are poisoned, and lately I'm having trouble breaking 10 on my attack rolls, and so have plenty of misses to my credit.

But I can see that it might be an issue in (for example) an assassin-oriented game.

A similar issue (similar in structure, that is) arises with (pre-errata) Come and Get it. The PC in my agme with that power is a polearm fighter. He has heaps of abilities that pull and push and slide one or more enemies. When he uses Come and Get It, the narrative is generally not one of taunting, but one of deft work with his polearm that wrongfoots and ensnares his foes.

Now if he were using a dagger rather than a polearm, and/or was frequently fighting on terrain which made the idea of deft footwork implausible, then we might need to find a new standard narration.

This is why I think I agree with [MENTION=386]LostSoul[/MENTION] that abstraction, with the actual players at the table filling in the details as makes sense for their fictional context, is a virtue rather than a flaw. But I think it would help for the rulebooks to talk a bit about different ways of handling these things. Particularly around some obvious and notorious difficult areas, like falling damage and PCs caught in the centre of fireballs and dragon's breath. (I think the AD&D DMG actually did a better job on this particular issues - especially saving throws - than the more modern rulebooks. 4e's rules needed this sort of commentary/guidance, and suffered from the lack of it.)