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

[Arch-Fiend]

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.

lol look at this duuude. man i wonder if the universe you live in is as awesome as mine. some day youll be able to write a retort to a statement i make frog where you dont have to appeal to everyone else in the conversation in order to check if they have your back on what you say. you've been called out by me and slapped down by others for it, i dont know what will get you to learn.

lets get back to base on what it is we are actually arguing about in order to properly tally that remark you just made. im arguing that the mechanics behind damage in 5e D&D does not describe an interpretation of hitpoint removal where hitpoints are removed as an action on the part of the character losing stamina in an effort to avoid a lethal attack, as well as those mechanics describe an interpretation of hitpoint removal where hitpoints are removed as an action of injury to a characters durability.

ive outlined my entire case for this (though ive thought of a few more knails for the coffin) which does not require any player, dm included, to briefly step away from the narrative presented for how hitpoint mechanics work in order to conveniently change it in order to account for its inconsistencies

can you do the same? if so i expect you to break down EACH of my criticism of the interpretation outlined in my thesis and i expect you to show your work. i dont care if you have to go back through and quote every instance you claim people have done this. im pretty sure i argued against every attempt to do so thus far, so im very curious to see what i missed.

 

[Celebrim]

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"

Yes, that isn't an is an abstraction. But, no, that's not what a hit point is.

 

[Fanaelialae]

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.

I disagree. I don't think that people are filling holes in the narrative with contrivances, and I certainly don't think it has much to do with the "authorities" who present the answer doing so "charismatically".

I would say that hit points are intended as a simple, functional, abstract table solution for a complex problem (modeling survival). Their abstract nature leverages the greatest strength TTRPGs have - the human mind. Humans are great at creativity and making sense of patterns.

The system you've proposed might be great for a computer, which is excellent for quick calculations. However, it's a fair amount of overhead for the average human.

You need to examine whether the attack hit touch AC. If so, check whether it hit armor AC. Does the weapon type modify the AC? If armor was hit, subtract DR from damage. Then subtract the remaining damage from your hp.

That's far more complicated than checking whether the attack hit your AC and, if so, subtract the damage from your hp total.

Moreover, after the added steps do we arrive at a realistic outcome? Possibly somewhat closer to real. But still definitely a far cry from being actually realistic. So it really comes down to whether the individual feels that the result is worth the extra effort. For some people it will be worth it, and if it adds to their enjoyment then that's great. However, IME, for most people it won't be worth it because it results in added tedium with no real benefit.

 

[FrogReaver]

lol look at this duuude. man i wonder if the universe you live in is as awesome as mine. some day youll be able to write a retort to a statement i make frog where you dont have to appeal to everyone else in the conversation in order to check if they have your back on what you say. you've been called out by me and slapped down by others for it, i dont know what will get you to learn.

A little to hot on the language there... calm it down please.

can you do the same? if so i expect you to break down EACH of my criticism of the interpretation outlined in my thesis and i expect you to show your work. i dont care if you have to go back through and quote every instance you claim people have done this. im pretty sure i argued against every attempt to do so thus far, so im very curious to see what i missed.

1. You have no right to dictate what form a rebuttal to your statements take.
2. Multiple rebuttals to your statements have already been provided and ignored by you.
3. I am not going to go back through pages of discussion and dig them up for you to ignore again.

For completeness sake I will give one example. Please refer to PHB 196.

Different attacks, damaging spells, and other harmful effects deal different types of damage. Damage types have no rules of their own

One of your main arguments revolves around the existence of damage types and right here we have the PHB telling us that there aren't even rules for them. The only reason damage types exist are so resistance and vulnerability and a few other mechanics can refer to them.

Seems like a flimsy argument would be to base anything on damage types when the rules themselves say they don't have any rules.

 

[Arch-Fiend]

Yes, that isn't an is an abstraction. But, no, that's not what a hit point is.

 

[FrogReaver]

@Arch-Fiend

Hit points are abstract. Thus they reflect the mechanics of damage by being a measure of a characters durability (how tough they are to defeat/kill). They also are an expression of endurance expended by a character avoiding a lethal attack. And finally, they can also be whatever you need them to be in any given damage instance.

However, what hitpoints are not, they are not always meat. They are not always anything.

 

[DND_Reborn]

View attachment 115252

What is the point of this? I am hoping a post is following, otherwise I find this very non-constructive and will probably stop following the thread.

I think this has been hashed out on both sides pretty thoroughly at this point.

You want HP and damage to be entirely physical, go for it. How it affects your game if you try it will determine if you like this as your narrative.

I prefer the abstract version where, frankly, it simply doesn't matter except for the narrative. We enjoy our game, I am sure you enjoy yours. That's all that is really important.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Seems like a flimsy argument would be to base anything on damage types when the rules themselves say they don't have any rules.

That strikes me as organizational - there are rules, they're just not neatly in one place where they'd be obnoxiously easy to find, and in danger of clarity.

 

[Arch-Fiend]

What is the point of this? I am hoping a post is following, otherwise I find this very non-constructive and will probably stop following the thread.

I think this has been hashed out on both sides pretty thoroughly at this point.

You want HP and damage to be entirely physical, go for it. How it affects your game if you try it will determine if you like this as your narrative.

I prefer the abstract version where, frankly, it simply doesn't matter except for the narrative. We enjoy our game, I am sure you enjoy yours. That's all that is really important.

you might not be familiar with the meme, but the meme is that these 2 characters dress up as another character when he is having a realestate agent come to his home so that he can sell it and move away from these 2. (i dont remember their reason for dressing up as him though) anyway they introduce themselves to her before he ever does and really begin to annoy her and drive her crazy until when he shows up she takes it all out on him and says she will never sell his house. "hes squidward, your squidward, im squidward!" "this is how hitpoints are suppose to be, thats how hitpoints are suppose to be, im how hitpoints are suppose to be!"

i was just meant to be sharing a harmless meme in the middle of an argument that i figured we wernt to emotionally invested in. i mean i have slight emotional investment but thats mostly just slight exasperation

 

[FrogReaver]

That strikes me as organizational - there are rules, they're just not neatly in one place where they'd be obnoxiously easy to find, and in danger of clarity.

I dunno. Damage types have no rules to themselves. There are a few rules about resistance and vulnerability and that's really all that the damage types are there for right?