How do you handle hit points?

[Bawylie]

All that is just color though. A player can't buy a result different than the one that they got, other than "death" (or similar loss). A player can't buy a partial result: they can't decide to spend 7 hit points and take 1/8th of a consequence. The dice are still dictating to them, they are only coloring what the dice have dictated.

As such, since we don't need to adopt this framework to allow someone to create color - that is to say no PC needs a mechanic that gives them the right to RP their character - this change isn't a real change.

The real change I see, or at least I think I see, depending on how it actually plays out at the table, is that a participant gets to set the stakes. In other words, I think it lets a participant in the game decide not what 8 hit points of damage means in terms of color after the fortune happens, but lets them decide (at least some of the time) what 8 hit points of damage means before the fortune roll is even made.

A change in color is a pretty big change.

Let’s consider two questions:
“Are you happy with your life?”
“Are you unhappy with your life?”

Functionally, this is the same question. Practically, these questions yield extremely different answers - even when posed to the same person. (This is a well-studied phenomenon).

Because the “color” can change how a player feels about what happens, even when what happens is functionally the same thing (lose 8 HP/spend 8 HP), the perspective change is significant.

I won’t argue what constitutes a “real” change because that seems like a matter of opinion. But I will say that the expectation/attention shift that the player narrate how they deal with the damage affects more than just color - it engages their creative impulse (the use of the imagination, in this case) and their Expression (how they see their character/avatar and how that character exists in the fictional world). That seems significant to me, even if the practical and functional operations are identical.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

Like @Hussar said, then your character suffers the full consequences of the attack or hazard. If your opponent wanted to kill you - the most frequent situation - then it succeeded and your character is dying, unstable, and you have to roll death saving throws. If the opponent just wanted to slap you behind the head, then you allowed it to do so, probably without further complications.

The most obvious muddy corner is whether you keep the hp you have when you can't spend enough to negate the attack (i.e. you have 4 hp left and receive 10 damage). We know by this interpretation that you couldn't avoid the consequence and become dying, but do you still have 4hp?

That's where the DM needs to stay consequent with RAW and rule that if character with 0 hp is dying, a dying character has, by definition, 0 hp (otherwise it would be stable and conscious). A character that cannot spend enough hp to negate an attack becomes dying and drops to 0 hp. There might be some mental gymnastics to do with things like zombie fortitude or half-orc relentless endurance ability, but the results should always match RAW.

What it does allow however, like Hussar pointed out, is for characters to suffer consequences other than death without getting killed. For example, in a duel at first blood, first blood is drawn when a character cannot negate its opponent's damage. So a duelist with 4 hp taking 10 damage suffers the consequence; it is bleeding and lost the duel. But it is still alive with 4hp. Same with bar brawls and if you want to go that route, most physical competitions involving some sort of "attack".

perhaps we could even use that to model Elan’s pie-eating contest with the Banjo Island orcs...

‘‘Tis is exactly how FATE works. You have a stress track and a set of ‘consequences’that soak damage. When you no longer have any slots left to soak damage, you are Taken Out. Taken Out doesn’t necessarily mean death. It could mean a humiliating beating in front of your peers or that you’ve lost the mcguffin you were fighting over or rendered unconscious and captured.

The key is that you are not required to soak damage. You can simply say that you suffer the full effects of the attack and suffer the consequences. If death is on the line, you might spend your full resources to avoid it. But maybe being beat and humiliated is worth not spending those resources.

The key is that a player know what the consequences for defeat are before the conflict starts. You need to know what you are fighting for.

I like the idea of implementing this in a D&D game. FATE has a reward system for losing though, so I’m not sure how often you’d choose not to spend hit points, especially given they get replenished much easier than previous editions.

 

[Celebrim]

I like the idea of implementing this in a D&D game. FATE has a reward system for losing though, so I’m not sure how often you’d choose not to spend hit points, especially given they get replenished much easier than previous editions.

That's a big part of the conceptual problem I'm having. I'm familiar with systems were you actually do chose to spend or not spend resources to mitigate or remove consequences... or even do the reverse, choose to accept consequences if you are paid in resources. And I simply can't map D&D on to that process, because it really doesn't work like that even if you borrow the terminology.

Now, we could make some big changes to the game's rules so that you'd actually spend hit points as a resource, and combat was won in part (or in whole!) by bidding hit points against a foe's bid, but if we adopted that new process for mechanical resolution, it would be very notably not a traditional D&D/D20 rules set.

 

[AkaKageWarrior]

Movie heroes dodging grenades & bullets - that's many hp.

 

[Celebrim]

A change in color is a pretty big change.

Let’s consider two questions:
“Are you happy with your life?”
“Are you unhappy with your life?”

Functionally, this is the same question. Practically, these questions yield extremely different answers - even when posed to the same person. (This is a well-studied phenomenon).

This may be the point where I realize I'm the problem. You should know that my nickname among certain groups is "Spock", and I see both of those questions as objectively different and further, that they are sort of like asking me, "How do you feel?" I know the answer is supposed to be, "I feel fine." and the phrase really means the same as "Hello" but with a different required response, but it's a rather meaningless question.

We can remove the assumption that the test takers in your well-studied phenomenon are irrational if we assume that test takers intuitively or consciously do not divide life into two states, and therefore do not use binary logic. It is quite reasonable to suggest that there is a state of being "Happy" and a state of being "Unhappy", and that there are states of being which are neither markedly "Happy" or "Unhappy" but which are neither. If we answer the questions according to trianary logic, we no longer have to assume the actors or irrational because the two questions are very different:

"Are you happy with your life" => Answer in the affirmative if you are either happy, but not if are neutral or unhappy.
"Are you unhappy with your life" => Answer in the affirmative if you are unhappy, but not if you are neutral or happy.

As such, we might really expect some people to answer "No" to both questions, even if they are asked in the same circumstances. They are experiencing no state of being that they associate with either happiness or unhappiness. These people will invariably taint the results of any simple polling, even before we get in to other very real problems with that sort of methodology. (The problem with polls is that the answer you get depends entirely on how you construct them, so you can get pretty much answer you want.)

Human language is not very precise, and in order to understand it, you really have to question people regarding what they were thinking when they employed it. Polls don't do that, which is why they are so regularly inaccurate and conclusions drawn from them spurious.

Because the “color” can change how a player feels about what happens, even when what happens is functionally the same thing (lose 8 HP/spend 8 HP), the perspective change is significant.

Again, the problem here may be that I'm too Spock-like to see these two things as shift in perspective. Functionally, I have less 8 hit points and there was nothing I could have done to avoid it either way.

I won’t argue what constitutes a “real” change because that seems like a matter of opinion.

As I am using the word "real" here, I mean a change that doesn't seem like a matter of opinion. "the perspective change is significant" seems like a matter of opinion. When I talk about something being real, I mean there is an objective difference in the procedures of play - particularly one that produces outcomes unlikely or impossible in the compared procedure of play.

But I will say that the expectation/attention shift that the player narrate how they deal with the damage affects more than just color - it engages their creative impulse (the use of the imagination, in this case) and their Expression (how they see their character/avatar and how that character exists in the fictional world). That seems significant to me, even if the practical and functional operations are identical.

If it causes a real change in process, then it is real and worth describing. So for example, if Laurefindel's players more regularly narrate their actions or the results of their actions rather than just reporting numbers ("16... hit... take 11 damage") then that's a real change in process that could be measured. The two games, one without narration, and one with narration are different. Likewise if it means a shift in narrative burden from a GM to a player, and we can quantify that, then that is also real. The thing is, I'm not convinced that this shift actually causes a measurable shift in the process of play more than simply prompting a player to engage in that way, or a player assuming the right to narrate their own actions as part of their role-play. That isn't so much subjective as it is particular to an individual, and I'm not sure this is a strong enough process of play to override individual preferences because it doesn't incentivize the player for departing from their preferences of narration or not narration.

 

[Bawylie]

This may be the point where I realize I'm the problem. You should know that my nickname among certain groups is "Spock", and I see both of those questions as objectively different and further, that they are sort of like asking me, "How do you feel?" I know the answer is supposed to be, "I feel fine." and the phrase really means the same as "Hello" but with a different required response, but it's a rather meaningless question.

We can remove the assumption that the test takers in your well-studied phenomenon are irrational if we assume that test takers intuitively or consciously do not divide life into two states, and therefore do not use binary logic. It is quite reasonable to suggest that there is a state of being "Happy" and a state of being "Unhappy", and that there are states of being which are neither markedly "Happy" or "Unhappy" but which are neither. If we answer the questions according to trianary logic, we no longer have to assume the actors or irrational because the two questions are very different:

"Are you happy with your life" => Answer in the affirmative if you are either happy, but not if are neutral or unhappy.
"Are you unhappy with your life" => Answer in the affirmative if you are unhappy, but not if you are neutral or happy.

As such, we might really expect some people to answer "No" to both questions, even if they are asked in the same circumstances. They are experiencing no state of being that they associate with either happiness or unhappiness. These people will invariably taint the results of any simple polling, even before we get in to other very real problems with that sort of methodology. (The problem with polls is that the answer you get depends entirely on how you construct them, so you can get pretty much answer you want.)

Human language is not very precise, and in order to understand it, you really have to question people regarding what they were thinking when they employed it. Polls don't do that, which is why they are so regularly inaccurate and conclusions drawn from them spurious.



Again, the problem here may be that I'm too Spock-like to see these two things as shift in perspective. Functionally, I have less 8 hit points and there was nothing I could have done to avoid it either way.



As I am using the word "real" here, I mean a change that doesn't seem like a matter of opinion. "the perspective change is significant" seems like a matter of opinion. When I talk about something being real, I mean there is an objective difference in the procedures of play - particularly one that produces outcomes unlikely or impossible in the compared procedure of play.



If it causes a real change in process, then it is real and worth describing. So for example, if Laurefindel's players more regularly narrate their actions or the results of their actions rather than just reporting numbers ("16... hit... take 11 damage") then that's a real change in process that could be measured. The two games, one without narration, and one with narration are different. Likewise if it means a shift in narrative burden from a GM to a player, and we can quantify that, then that is also real. The thing is, I'm not convinced that this shift actually causes a measurable shift in the process of play more than simply prompting a player to engage in that way, or a player assuming the right to narrate their own actions as part of their role-play. That isn't so much subjective as it is particular to an individual, and I'm not sure this is a strong enough process of play to override individual preferences because it doesn't incentivize the player for departing from their preferences of narration or not narration.

Hm.

Let me clarify. I was talking about studies of a phenomenon, not polls about the self-reported levels of happiness in people’s lives. The phrasing of the question directs the subject’s attention such that the attention leads the response. IOW, when you ask someone if they’re happy with their life, their attention is drawn to memories that are happy and they are 4 times as likely to respond “yes I am happy” than the control group. Whereas if you ask “are you unhappy with your life?” the subject’s attention fixated on unhappy memories and they are 4 times as likely to say “I am unhappy,” than the control. The phenomenon is that a person feels differently about something depending on the filter (or perspective) by which they examine that thing.

If you don’t accept that this phenomenon happens, then I suppose you can only conclude that the loss of 8 HP has the same emotional impact every time, without regard to the player’s perspective. And, okay fine - but let’s try shifting your perspective.

Would you say that the loss of your first 8 HP is more important, less important, or equally important to the loss of your last 8 HP? I suspect that losing your last 8 HP and dropping to zero is a more impactful event than losing your first 8 HP and still being able to stand and fight. And if that IS true, then you can see that how you feel about the loss of HP, even the same amount of HP, can carry a different emotional weight circumstantially. You seem to be aware of this - you even acknowledge the “problem with polling” is exactly the phenomenon I’m describing.

And if you can acknowledge THAT, then it’s not too far of a step to imagine that some people might feel differently “spending” HP on a narrative defense of an attack (thereby gaining an opportunity to spotlight something neat about their character) than they would just losing HP from another attack.

No shift in the process of play is required. It’s a shift in perspective and it may be significant (as studies indicate they are).

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

Since it was brought up, Ive never had someone describe a hit on someone else unless it’s the ‘killing blow’. I also let a player describe how they take out an enemy. I might say, “you take him out. Describe what happens”.

I never let someone describe what happens to another person taking damage.

If I ever kill a pc, I let them ‘own their death scene’ and, if there is an opportunity, make a death speech or whatever.

 

[dave2008]

with talcum powder and latex gloves of course!

 

[robus]

Now, we could make some big changes to the game's rules so that you'd actually spend hit points as a resource, and combat was won in part (or in whole!) by bidding hit points against a foe's bid, but if we adopted that new process for mechanical resolution, it would be very notably not a traditional D&D/D20 rules set.

I think simply making the player roll damage (now called "defense" or something) to find out how difficult it is to fend off the successful attack is all that's need to adjust to this definition of HP? The player is determining (randomly it's true) how much it costs them from their resource pool. But perhaps I'm thinking of some middle path between what you and [MENTION=67296]Laurefindel[/MENTION] are conceiving?

But more likely I'm not fully grokking the issue?

 

[Celebrim]

Hm.

Let me clarify. I was talking about studies of a phenomenon, not polls about the self-reported levels of happiness in people’s lives. The phrasing of the question directs the subject’s attention such that the attention leads the response. IOW, when you ask someone if they’re happy with their life, their attention is drawn to memories that are happy and they are 4 times as likely to respond “yes I am happy” than the control group. Whereas if you ask “are you unhappy with your life?” the subject’s attention fixated on unhappy memories and they are 4 times as likely to say “I am unhappy,” than the control. The phenomenon is that a person feels differently about something depending on the filter (or perspective) by which they examine that thing.

Fascinating. That's not the results I would have anticipated, nor is it remotely how I approach the questions intellectually or emotionally.

If you don’t accept that this phenomenon happens...

I'm not saying that it doesn't happen, I'm just saying I don't trust a scientific paper until I can read its methodology. But I don't want to get side tracked into a discussion of academia and its failings.

then I suppose you can only conclude that the loss of 8 HP has the same emotional impact every time, without regard to the player’s perspective. And, okay fine - but let’s try shifting your perspective.

Would you say that the loss of your first 8 HP is more important, less important, or equally important to the loss of your last 8 HP? I suspect that losing your last 8 HP and dropping to zero is a more impactful event than losing your first 8 HP and still being able to stand and fight. And if that IS true, then you can see that how you feel about the loss of HP, even the same amount of HP, can carry a different emotional weight circumstantially.

D&D famously does not apply any particular consequence to the loss of your first 8 hit points compared to the loss of your last 8 hit points. Losing your last 8 hit points is more emotionally impactful because it is more consequential, more difficult to recover from, and happens more rarely. These properties of the are objective and not subjective, so a person's emotional response to them being greater is reasonable and predictable given the differences between the two events. As such, I still find myself denying that a person's response to this event is based on perceptual filters, and as such continue to get side tracked by the fact that the A and B you are contrasting have objective differences.

If I may offer an example of something which is based on a perceptual filter, people tend to rate wines more highly in blind taste tests if they are told that the wine is more expensive and rated more highly than others. Same wine - two different reactions. Reasonably acceptable example for all parties?

You seem to be aware of this - you even acknowledge the “problem with polling” is exactly the phenomenon I’m describing.

Not at all. While I do agree that it's possible to bias a polling question via something like your "perspective filters", the problems with polling go vastly beyond that.

And if you can acknowledge THAT, then it’s not too far of a step to imagine that some people might feel differently “spending” HP on a narrative defense of an attack (thereby gaining an opportunity to spotlight something neat about their character) than they would just losing HP from another attack.

People are capable of vast amounts of self-delusion.