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

[FrogReaver]

its because i stayed up late one night talking to someone else about their own game and i had the inspiration to do it. im also a fan of historical European martial arts and am on a discord server full of people like that but we also talk about ttrpgs a lot.

basically my armor dr rules have nothing to do with my preferred interpretation of hitpoints besides the fact that i only think the method i created works with a supernatural durability interpretation. its a limit to my design not anyone elses, but im ok with that because i like what i made for what its worth.

K. That helps untangle the situation.

So then you would be happy with an HP=Meat and no DR? If so what mechanic is associated with being hit in the armor?

 

[Fanaelialae]

all also add that if the DM has to figure out how something in the rules makes sense, you are basically saying that on its face value it doe sent make sense.

Nah, there are plenty of games which use abstract mechanics, where it is on the GM (or table) to make sense of the result in terms of narrative. It's literally leveraging the biggest advantage TTRPGs have compared to CRPGs (utilizing the creativity of the human mind).

Monsterpunk (and I think Strike!) use a system of twists and bonuses. Essentially, these are either something bad happens or something good happens on a roll. There are a few examples in the book of good/bad things that could happen, but it is entirely up to the table to make sense of it in play (and, by extension, avoid choosing results that would be nonsensical).

That doesn't make it a bad mechanic or nonsensical. In fact, I would say that the mechanic is a strength of that system.

 

[Seramus]

The simple answer:

HP is many things, and changes depending on the character who has them. Bob takes gushing wounds, Jane avoids the attack but is exhausted, and Alice starts to doubt herself.

 

[Arch-Fiend]

K. That helps untangle the situation.

So then you would be happy with an HP=Meat and no DR? If so what mechanic is associated with being hit in the armor?

happy and content are similar but different feelings. my reason for looking at hitpoints as a measure of durability isint due to how ac in the game works but because of how damage seems to work to me. the way armor is written in the game isint how i would do it, but i dont think it makes a bad game either, its stood the test of time mechanically, all D&D's mechanics have to one extent or another, i just disagree with the interpretation.

i do think that armor representing deflecting blows away from ever dealing any damage at all while it has flaws in nuanced cases (this armor vs this weapon, that weapon vs this armor, ect) i think it works fine regardless of your interpretation of hitpoints because i dont think anyone's interpretation of armor is that armor doesent get in the way of a natural or manufactured weapon. at least ive never heard anyone else say armor works any differently. that "getting in the way" however can be debated about how its best represented, some will say ac, others DR, me i think both, if the DR is high enough then if armor has an ac and you hit that ac and cant do enough damage to do any damage at all, then it acts no differently than ac without DR.

 

[Garthanos]

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 need to listen to this advice better so I am repeating it for myself.

 

[Garthanos]

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

DMs to me are just another player of the game as generally used language wise ... I think you are being persnickety. That said I like the details of hit points to be largely around the methodology of defenses (and occasionally with attack context included) at least on the players side.

 

[Arch-Fiend]

Nah, there are plenty of games which use abstract mechanics, where it is on the GM (or table) to make sense of the result in terms of narrative. It's literally leveraging the biggest advantage TTRPGs have compared to CRPGs (utilizing the creativity of the human mind).

Monsterpunk (and I think Strike!) use a system of twists and bonuses. Essentially, these are either something bad happens or something good happens on a roll. There are a few examples in the book of good/bad things that could happen, but it is entirely up to the table to make sense of it in play (and, by extension, avoid choosing results that would be nonsensical).

That doesn't make it a bad mechanic or nonsensical. In fact, I would say that the mechanic is a strength of that system.

criticism isint necessarily to say something is bad as much as to point out how something can be bad. a blank sheet and pure nonsense looks very much the same when you hand someone a blank sheet and tell them theres something there. now of course you can then tell them when they respond "i dont see anything" with telling them its there for them to come up with their own answer, but a book cant respond to a question it doesent expect. my issue with D&D is when it discusses hitpoints it doesent blatantly say "this is for you to come up with your idea about how it works in the moment" but ill also say that expecting that of people is expecting something, thats not very user friendly especially with a huge influx of new players.

everything should be writen as if its the first time someone has ever read it.

 

[Tony Vargas]

DMs to me are just another player of the game as generally used language wise ... I think you are being persnickety

The player-DM distinction is both stark and critically important in both TSR era and 5e D&D.

That said I like the details of hit points to be largely around the methodology of defenses (and occasionally with attack context included) at least on the players side.

Like Arch-Feind's observation that, in 5e, active defenses are perforce modeled by hps, that's an interesting one.

It occurs to me that active defenses are also modeled by at least some saving throws, as well.

I've never heard of such a thing, but I suppose a "Goal & Aproach" DM could expand that style to defense, with your declared G&A figuring into whether you made a save or weathered an attack roll, and whether you took up damage or suffered an effect or condition....

 

[snickersnax]

Then why do you want to add DR into the game? It's because you find something lacking about the current mechanics in the HP=Meat interpretation and you are trying to account for that something with DR... no?

I want damage reduction because I'm tired of getting burned when I take a tray of cookies out of the oven. Any system which can't model a decent potholder is no good IMO.

 

[Garthanos]

The player-DM distinction is both stark and critically important in both TSR era and 5e D&D.

Meh....

Like Arch-Feind's observation that, in 5e, active defenses are perforce modeled by hps, that's an interesting one.

It occurs to me that active defenses are also modeled by at least some saving throws, as well.

I've never heard of such a thing, but I suppose a "Goal & Aproach" DM could expand that style to defense, with your declared G&A figuring into whether you made a save or weathered an attack roll, and whether you took up damage or suffered an effect or condition....

That does seem intriguing... Similar to something I have been considering do i spend HPs or Accept a Wound now (an affliction of some sort)

The affliction is an impairment which periodically surfaces till healed with the impairment recurring and tied to saving throws