D&D 5E ludonarrative dissonance of hitpoints in D&D

[Arch-Fiend]

So, here's the thing, it isn't just impatience and disrespect. It isn't just your expectations that have not been met.

To be effective, an author needs to consider the audience and the medium. The audience expects you to do that... and I'm sorry to say, you didn't do it particularly well. You put up a piece that is difficult to read and absorb, and blame their impatience? That... doesn't look really respectful of your readers.

Some constructive bits:

1) Capital letters. They aren't just historical convention propagated by teachers. In the spoken word, we have tone and cadence that denotes when ideas begin and end. That role is played by capitalization and punctuation in the written form. By leaving them out, you significantly increase the cognitive work required to digest your piece. You could fix that.

2) Segmenation - Messageboards operate as casual conversations. Cognitively, folks approach them as conversations. In effect, you started this conversation by standing up and talking at folks for about seven minutes straight (the time it typically takes to speak 1000+ words aloud) before entertaining their input. That's not the form of a conversation. It is the form of a lecture. If folks here have lots of expertise you hope to engage, don't lecture them. There are several different structures you could use to avoid this large opening salvo.

3) Make sure the point of the work is clear. State it at the beginning. Tell folks what problem you intend to solve, or improvement you are hoping to make, up front. Don't get upset at people for missing the point when you don't clearly and unambiguously tell them what the point is.

i agree that i not using capitalization does make it more difficult to read my posts, i apologize for that the only excuse i have for that is only an excuse.

i came here with an idea, an idea which could only be fully expressed in its complete intact form and spoken all at once, i completely understand how its not customary, and how its expecting something from those who want to comment on it that is not normally expressed, though i hope that no one thought that i would not be striking up a conversation about it afterword, if so then i think its safe to say that has been put to rest. however i must say the conversation was started by what i said, and typically would and should be about that, regardless of how long it is of what i said, the only way to properly comment on it with a conclusive understanding of what it is saying is to actually know what it is i said, to do so otherwise means an almost certain possibility of misunderstanding, and we have certainly seen that.

i stated clearly what the point of the work was, and even concluded it by referencing what the work was about. at no point in the work did i deviate away from what the work was about or follow any tangent whats so ever, and honestly thats rare for me because i love to ramble.

 

[Arch-Fiend]

There are no classes and five (out of 40) sub-classes in the 5e PH that gain no supernatural powers, at all (down from 4 full classes out of 8 in the prior edition PH1, and 3 full classes in the PH1 before that).

So, actually, no it's not that unreasonable to just ignore/discount those 5 sub-classes as, er well, second-class options that don't really have a meaningful role in the game, and consider the game only in terms of the remaining 35, sub-class options. But it's not reasonable to think that the game intends that, especially as one of those 5 sub-classes is the Champion, easily the most popular option among new players.

(Or, at least, it'd be really cynical.)

my statement isint actually implying that you should ignore the presence of classes that dont get supernatural abilities in some way, what it argues is that the presence of supernatural abilities throughout the game vary much validates the interpretation of supernatural durability, and if thats what hitpoints are then the classes that arnt supernatural would be with regard to hitpoints.

i think the best argument for why hitpoints as meatpoints shouldent be the default for the game is something i think most people will appreciate based on the arguments that have been made, and that reason is that if hitpoints are left abstract then the game is open to a wider range of interpretations. my intent of actually arguing for the meatpoint system and the entire point of my thesis is simply to highlight how the perspectives of players new to the game should be respected and to argue against the idea that there is a correct interpretation of what hitpoints are so that people will stop bugging me that armor as DR makes no sense.

 

[Arch-Fiend]

what im against is the official narrative and the narrative expositted by folks like matt colville that hitpoints is definitively an expression of the endurance a character expends in order to not take a lethal blow from a weapon. this is the narrative that keeps telling me i dont understand how hitpoints work rather than simply telling me that hitpoints can work any way players of the game want them to work.

what im not against is the best interpretation, which is that any interpretation of hitpoints and damage is valid.

 

[DND_Reborn]

well maybe im snappy but i think i probably just phrased myself poorly while trying to be precise in my language and completely honest, thats kinda sharp and blunt at the same time, but its to avoid misunderstandings (not that i cant cause that to happen for other causes).

sorry for the implication of a challenge, but you did reply to "why cant you do something" with an answer implying you couldn't, when you knew you could so i felt like it required the challenge.

i understand the desire for something gritter, i think you have mentioned more games that could stand in for D&D than anyone else so far in this thread, so you certainly have your options.

the reason why ive been advocating so strongly for the "hitpoints as meat points" thing goes back into my defense of the idea that damage is very reflective of the physical, because i dont like the idea of so many new people coming to the game and seeing how it is and being told they are wrong for the way they naturally interpret the language and the way the mechanics seem to imply how damage works simply because people say hitpoints does something that runs contrary to their intuition. i think gameplay should try to be intuitive, and my entire point in my first post on this thread was about what the mechanics of the game imply to people when they look at them at face value and the typical experience a new player will come to the game with.

when new players come to the game i think they see it the way ive presented in the first post of this thread, and i dont just think that because i think that way to, i sat down and really looked at the way these mechanics work and play off of each other, i wouldn't have sat there and listed every check that constitution and strength bonuses can be applied to in the game to get a general idea about what they actually represent if i didn't want to try to approach this with as little of my own bias as i could.

Fair enough. I understand how sometimes we can become a bit harsh in our efforts to make certain people understand our POV. I know, I've done it more than once myself.

I completely agree that new players, especially without any prior gaming experience, expect hit points to more equate to meat points. Look at video games. Your health goes down when you are hit, not when you are missed or dodged, right? So it is a bit of a stretch to explain how things are different in D&D.

Do they have to be? Nope. You could play it as you said, but as I said it changes the feel of the game too much for me, personally. Now, I feel this way also about AC and super high HP values compared to 1E/2E that I mostly played. I don't really like the "you-hit-most-of-the-time-but-it-takes-forever-to-kill-your-foe" idea. I prefer the "you-hit-less-often-but-need-less-hits-to-kill-your-foe" mindset.

I mean it is basically the difference between:

5-5-5-miss-5-5-miss-5-5-5-miss-5-dead

and

10-miss-miss-miss-15-miss-10-miss-miss-miss-miss-10-dead

Both take 12 rounds. Both take 45 hp of damage. But the second requires less work on the DM's part. And yet the first is suppose to make the player "feel more like they are accomplishing something." yawn

Comparing your initial post in the other thread, there is certainly nothing wrong with trying to make D&D more like that, but I also think you need to find more of a balance between realism, historical accuracy, simplicity, and fun. IME, the first two are often at odds with the last two. Given the limited time most groups have to play, the first two are often sacrificed in pursuit of more of the last two. If you don't find them at odds in your idea and for your table--well, I'll just leave you to it and hope it works out for you.

 

[DND_Reborn]

what im against is the official narrative and the narrative expositted by folks like matt colville that hitpoints is definitively an expression of the endurance a character expends in order to not take a lethal blow from a weapon. this is the narrative that keeps telling me i dont understand how hitpoints work rather than simply telling me that hitpoints can work any way players of the game want them to work.

what im not against is the best interpretation, which is that any interpretation of hitpoints and damage is valid.

Sure, any interpretation is valid. Which is best is in the eyes of the beholder.

 

[Arch-Fiend]

Comparing your initial post in the other thread, there is certainly nothing wrong with trying to make D&D more like that, but I also think you need to find more of a balance between realism, historical accuracy, simplicity, and fun. IME, the first two are often at odds with the last two. Given the limited time most groups have to play, the first two are often sacrificed in pursuit of more of the last two. If you don't find them at odds in your idea and for your table--well, I'll just leave you to it and hope it works out for you.

i do remember conceding in that other thread about armor that maybe it would be a good idea to also reduce hitpoints a bit, but i argued that if it was playtested enough it would very likely turn out to not need hitpoints reduced to much to have pretty similar pacing as 5e 50% at most. i dont think much fun is lost in that game just playing it straight up though. if someone wants to play something totally different then thats fine, its mostly made for those who want what i offered.

 

[FrogReaver]

what im against is the official narrative and the narrative expositted by folks like matt colville that hitpoints is definitively an expression of the endurance a character expends in order to not take a lethal blow from a weapon. this is the narrative that keeps telling me i dont understand how hitpoints work rather than simply telling me that hitpoints can work any way players of the game want them to work.

what im not against is the best interpretation, which is that any interpretation of hitpoints and damage is valid.

Agreed (I would substitute DM for players though as he's the most responsible for maintaining the shared fiction amongst them and narrating the results of the attacks. It usually doesn't work very well having players understand the fiction differently amongst them)

But I want to add... Valid is one thing. Actually being good at evoking the fiction you are aiming for is another. Perhaps the most important question isn't how historical or realistic or whatever focus you are designing mechanics for. The most important question IMO is does the mechanic I'm creating evoke the fiction I am expecting.

If you are good having level 10 fighters that can take 10+ longsword swings directly to his unarmored chest and keep going then the fiction you are trying to evoke is much different than the fiction most people expect D&D to evoke. As long as you understand that and still want to create a D&D meat based system them I'll even give ya advice on doing it. It's certainly not something I'd be interested in though.

 

[Tony Vargas]

my statement isint actually implying that you should ignore the presence of classes that dont get supernatural abilities in some way,

There are no such classes, of course, but, like I said, there are 5 sub-classes, two of them under the game's perennially most-popular class, that do completely lack supernatural abilities.

IDK if you payed attention to the playtest, but, there would be a remarkable hew & cry when any of the nascent version of that traditionally-non-supernatural class where floated that had abilities that could be interpreted as even slightly beyond the strictly mundane.

So there's a definite insistence, in the community, and the game's traditions, that there are wholly-mundane PCs.

what it argues is that the presence of supernatural abilities throughout the game vary much validates the interpretation of supernatural durability

Well, since there are those 5 sub-classes, it is not validated.

It is an interesting variant though, especially if considered as a broader re-imagining of the game in which all PCs have parity in terms of supernatural powers and resources.

 

[Arch-Fiend]

Agreed.

But I want to add... Valid is one thing. Actually being good at evoking the fiction you are aiming for is another. Perhaps the most important question isn't how historical or realistic or whatever focus you are designing mechanics for. The most important question IMO is does the mechanic I'm creating evoke the fiction I am expecting.

If you are good having level 10 fighters that can take 10+ longsword swings directly to his unarmored chest and keep going then the fiction you are trying to evoke is much different than the fiction most people expect D&D to evoke. As long as you understand that and still want to create a D&D meat based system them I'll even give ya advice on doing it. It's certainly not something I'd be interested in though.

if its people initial expectation of how the game works when they first get it and weve had a constant stream of people since the game was made in the 70s who need to be "corrected" about what hitpoints actually represent, i dont think its that different that what most people expect D&D to evoke. i think D&D got a lot of critisism back in the day for not being realistic by a bunch of people who the makers of the game looked up to and subsiquiently tried to defend their game from by implying it is actually realistic. the congental issue is that the game as its evolved has added mechanics to damage which reflect an interpritation of damage which i think and i think a lot of people first impressions comes of as being physical. one does not simply have different types of damage from weapons without the idea they do different things to the body and that what they can do to a body matters in a broader context than "damage is damage"

that being said it doesent invalidate the use of the system to be anything game masters and players want it to be. but i very much stand against the idea of correcting first impressions of the game unless those first impressions are unhelpful (example of an unhelpful first impression: "this game is dumb and for nerds"). which is why i back up the "hitpoints are supernatural durability" interpretation of the game and why i also dont think the game actually needs to change anything mechanically to fit that interpretation. do i think D&D needs to outright state that is the correct interpretation? no, though i do wish they would stop entertaining the idea that there is a correct one especially if that correct one is the one i argue against in my thesis. i would likewise argue if D&D wants to argue there is a correct interpretation of what hitpoints are, i think the best one for the most people is that hitpoints is durability because of how much semblance damage systems in the game have to our real world concept of body damage.

ultimately im not going to make a meatpoint system of D&D because i already think it is a meatpoint system and i dont think you need to change a single thing about the game to see it that way, what i have done is made a homebrew when i stayed up to late talking to a guy randomly about his game and thought "you know this might work" and then i made a homebrew for a game i dont even play. but im proud of it atleast.

 

[Tony Vargas]

the narrative that keeps telling me i dont understand how hitpoints work rather than simply telling me that hitpoints can work any way players of the game want them to work.

In 5e, the narrative surrounding hps is entirely the DM's purview, not the players' and not the community's.

That includes adding to or changing the underlying mechanics.