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

[Arch-Fiend]

Fair enough, but there still has to be a baseline default for the benefit of those who don't want to think about it any further (which is probably some DMs and most players).

The question then becomes one of what that baseline default should be, and whether the various descriptions and definitions then match what's intended.

well on the idea that there needs to be a baseline default, which i think youll find people disagreeing with, i would push forward the conclusion i made in my first post on this thread

very little about the mechanics of damage in D&D reinforce the idea of hitpoints in the game being an expression of avoiding death by avoiding body harm but rather expressions of the body avoiding death by being harmed less as hitpoints of a character increase. this creates a ludonarrative dissonance between what the game is telling players hitpoints represent and how they actually lose those hitpoints. furthermore reinforcing this ludonarrative dissonance is the system of avoiding damage all together in the armor class system and dexterity's impact on the game which implies a statistic that exists to avoid damage all together. the game does not require multiple narrative explanations for how a character avoids taking damage, especially where damage itself runs contrary to the narrative that the body is undamaged until its dead.

and i would pose hitpoints as a representation of supernatural durability to physically shrug off wounds that would slay lesser mortals as the best reflection of the complexity which is shown in the damage system of the game.

however the issue of setting a baseline (even though its already happened) is that it wont fit everyone's perspective on the game, it obviously doesn't fit mine but it also leads many people to go around telling others how their perspective on the game is incorrect. its a catch 20, either the game has a standard that fits its mechanics best, or it has no standard and those who just want to play a game RAW will be left in a sea of abstraction.

 

[Umbran]

its a catch 20, either the game has a standard that fits its mechanics best, or it has no standard and those who just want to play a game RAW will be left in a sea of abstraction.

Let's note something - this is the same abstraction the game has worked with since the 1970s. Four decades of it. And it is still by far the strongest selling RPG in the world.

If folks are left in a sea of abstraction... apparently, they learn how to swim or sail.

 

[Arch-Fiend]

Let's note something - this is the same abstraction the game has worked with since the 1970s. Four decades of it. And it is still by far the strongest selling RPG in the world.

If folks are left in a sea of abstraction... apparently, they learn how to swim or sail.

i dont think that "hitpoints are a measure of endurance your character expends in order to evade an attack that would otherwise deal lethal damage" is an abstraction. maybe ive been using the word wrong the entire time though, if thats the case then my thesis outlined in the first post on this thread explores why that abstraction does not reflect damage in D&D 5e (and it really doesent for 4th and 3rd edition nor several spells in the game nor how something like crushing damage from being swallowed whole or constricted by a snake should represent)

 

[Mallus]

Are hit points more confusing to new players or to experienced players who have overthought them?

What are peoples experiences with this?

 

[Garthanos]

Are hit points more confusing to new players or to experienced players who have overthought them?

What are peoples experiences with this?

My experience is that they think we are funny for worrying about it

 

[Arch-Fiend]

Are hit points more confusing to new players or to experienced players who have overthought them?

What are peoples experiences with this?

i think hitpoints are most confusing to 2 groups.

a. those who have more than an initial perspective on the game, have been playing for some time but not likely more than a year or 2 at most, especially when that person starts to think about homebrew, running the game themselves, or thinking about the mechanics in a way "outside the book" so to speak. hitpoints wouldn't just be the end of it but certainly anyone's interpretation of hitpoints is challenged as soon as they wonder how its realistic that skill alone makes a greatsword attack insignificant when it once was a matter of life and death.

b. some people have an answer to the confusion, but i think that answer hasent considered the full context of the mechanics that the statistic of hitpoints fits into and when faced with holes in the narrative will fill it with contrivances in order to avoid reevaluating the solution to their conclusion. the reason i think its so difficult to reevaluate is because the answer has been presented from the perspective of authority countless times, even by the maker of the game himself, and the authorities who give this answer are very charismatic in how they do it and describe it in very internally consistent ways.

this is a very effective combination to form a dogma, the old teaching the way those who seek the answers when they are seeking those answers rather than when those answers either do not matter yet or long after they have had time to consider it themselves to come up with their own conclusions. the way is though, as you might have guessed it, not bullet proof.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Let's note something - this is the same abstraction the game has worked with since the 1970s. Four decades of it.

Yes, and it's hard to pretend that it's "really" something else, just because that would fit some pet variant...
...but that stops no one.

And it is still by far the strongest selling RPG in the world.

And there's no reason to think the hp mechanic has anything to do with that.

 

[Arch-Fiend]

Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[FrogReaver]

Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In science what generally happens is one smart person presents their research and other smart people examine it and are either persuaded by it or not. If they disagree they will point out the parts they view as issues. At the end of the day if the vast majority of the really smart people have examined your work and dismissed it then you simply didn't have persuasive evidence to support your conclusions.

In fact, that's what has happened in this thread. You presented your evidence and conclusions and we gave reasons for why your evidence wasn't persuasive. So while a large majority examining your work and disagreeing with it does not and can never prove 100% that you wrong, the very fact you aren't convincing anyone is still evidence you are wrong.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Are hit points more confusing to new players or to experienced players who have overthought them?
What are peoples experiences with this?

Its something I've seen no issues with among new/casual players in the last 10 years. I ran a lot of introductory games, Encounters, conventions, AL in that period (prior to that, less D&D, more home games, and no interest from new players at cons).
It's some (still relatively few) long-time players bring up hp abstraction when confronted by something unfamiliar, and trying to reconcile it (or not).

Away from the table, it's a subject for the archaeology of the game, and for deep, like, Forge-level TTRPG philosophising.
And, of course, edition-warring.