Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mercurius" data-source="post: 6257597" data-attributes="member: 59082">Some good points here. I think [MENTION=7006]DEFCON 1[/MENTION] explained it really well and points out the inherent concerns with trying to take a process sim approach to D&D - its like Zeno's arrow: it may get closer to the target, but cannot possibly get there. To quote Seinfeld, "not that there's anything wrong with that!" But the problem is, the more specific you get - the more you veer towards simulation - the more you are confined by that simulation.D&D has always been a game that different groups, especially DMs, can make their own. That's part of the fun of it, and something I think Mearls & Co are trying to really emphasize with Next - which is a nice "return to tradition" from the last couple editions. But they're largely doing it by keeping a certain level of abstraction, that is not getting too focused on simulation.There are some assumptions either spelled out or implied by the RAW, hit points being a primary example. I personally don't see a valid argument that Hit Points are "meat." Perhaps some of them are meat, but at most it is something like the Constitution score, and perhaps not even that. One could argue that the "meat-portion" of HP must inherently be equal to or less than the lowest maximum damage for a weapon, that a critical hit by any weapon should be able to kill any humanoid. As soon as the maximum damage of a well-placed punch cannot kill another human-sized creature, then it gets into the abstract; it is more than just meat. So what is that, a few HP?So HP represents more than meat - and this isn't just "my take." This is how the rules have been written since the early days of the game and it is implied by the rules themselves - weapon damage, the lack of deleterious effects from lowered HP, etc. HP are an abstraction, and the game rules as a whole are an abstraction; they refer to the game itself, which is an abstraction, not to life, nor even to the narrative of the game. In a way we could say that an RPG has three separate, but relating domains: real life game table with players and DM; the rules themselves; and the interactive narrative or story, aka "theater of mind." They are completely separate, but relate with each other. But the point is that the rules don't refer to the real world or the theater of mind; they are an abstraction that adjudicates action within the latter.I think where some folks get into trouble is by trying to deny this necessary aspect of the game, of any game. Even the most simulationist game is going to have some level of this. I would even suggest that, as tempting as it is, as soon as we start introducing more simulative elements like Body vs. Vitality Points, or Bloodied, we end up moving away from the core of the game as it is written and played by most. HP are open-ended enough so that DMs can individualize them.If we want greater definition it may be that any damage before 0 HP is relatively minor - bumps and bruises, minor cuts - and anything below 0 HP requires medical attention. This means Damage on a Miss actually makes sense - within the context of the game itself - because it implies that a two-handed weapon always, unless a natural 1 is rolled I presume, causes some kind of harm. I mean its easy to justify: Imagine swinging a great axe and even if it is blocked, it jars the opponent. But my point is that we don't need to go there, and as soon as we go there we end up with (potential) problems. By keeping HP abstract, there is more freedom to decide, as individual DMs, what is going on in the theater of mind.</blockquote>

Verification