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

[Monayuris]

Not really sure what the point of the OP is. D&D is a game. It has hit points to determine whether your character dies or not.

HIt points are individual. Every player gets to decide what hit points mean to their character. When they reach 0, your character is dead (or dying). Otherwise, leave it to the player. For example, what a 6 hit point hit against a character with 26 hit points means is up to the player of that character.

One player may think 'it's just a flesh wound' and push their luck and continue fighting. Another player may consider it a damaging blow and want to retreat.

Hit points are only a gauge until your character is out of action. What they actually mean in the narrative is in the imagination of the player running the character.

 

[Arch-Fiend]

Not really sure what the point of the OP is. D&D is a game. It has hit points to determine whether your character dies or not.

HIt points are individual. Every player gets to decide what hit points mean to their character. When they reach 0, your character is dead (or dying). Otherwise, leave it to the player. For example, what a 6 hit point hit against a character with 26 hit points means is up to the player of that character.

One player may think 'it's just a flesh wound' and push their luck and continue fighting. Another player may consider it a damaging blow and want to retreat.

Hit points are only a gauge until your character is out of action. What they actually mean in the narrative is in the imagination of the player running the character.

i've got no problem with player interpritation, that does prevent the dm from interpreting it for the player in a way they might disagree with. but mostly my initial statement here was about a narrative i ran into when i first made a homebrew post here telling me i was wrong about how i designed homebrew because it ran contrary to how the game is suppose to work. but ive also heard the argument elsewhere from positions of authority which lead it to spreading as the official narrative even if it doesn't really have anything to do with the very broad definition in the book.

 

[Monayuris]

i've got no problem with player interpritation, that does prevent the dm from interpreting it for the player in a way they might disagree with. but mostly my initial statement here was about a narrative i ran into when i first made a homebrew post here telling me i was wrong about how i designed homebrew because it ran contrary to how the game is suppose to work. but ive also heard the argument elsewhere from positions of authority which lead it to spreading as the official narrative even if it doesn't really have anything to do with the very broad definition in the book.

My point is that the DM has no business interpreting damage to the player.

The DM states that the monster does 12 points of damage. It is up to the player to interpret what that means for their character.

It is up to the player to decide if it is a scratch or a mortal wound based on number of factors:
1. Their character's current hit points
2. How they feel about their character's survival
3. Their personal feeling about how much risk they are willing to take.

It is a game mechanism and it is one that is within purview of the players' imaginations.

 

[Arch-Fiend]

My point is that the DM has no business interpreting damage to the player.

The DM states that the monster does 12 points of damage. It is up to the player to interpret what that means for their character.

It is up to the player to decide if it is a scratch or a mortal wound based on number of factors:
1. Their character's current hit points
2. How they feel about their character's survival
3. Their personal feeling about how much risk they are willing to take.

It is a game mechanism and it is one that is within purview of the players' imaginations.

like i said i tend not to disagree with players having total narrative control over what hitpoints and damage means for their character. i was never really arguing against that perspective. the only case where the rules explicitly state that one thing happens is that injury poison must be delivered through injury and contact poison by contact. but beyond that im sure players having free reign over what damage means to them is completely viable. personally i like to have players describe their attacks and damage against targets of their attacks or damage just because its fun to spread that narration around.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Just spent roughly an hour reading this one thread....and yet I have no idea what actual base level opinion anyone is making anymore.

It seems like everyone agrees that HP are abstracted and that each GM has the right to decide how damage translates to the game world narrative at their own table AND that sometimes the mechanics of HP do a poor job of reflecting in game logic and believability. Literally EVERYONE agrees with this.

What's the fundamental argument left?

 

[Monayuris]

Just spent roughly an hour reading this one thread....and yet I have no idea what actual base level opinion anyone is making anymore.

It seems like everyone agrees that HP are abstracted and that each GM has the right to decide how damage translates to the game world narrative at their own table AND that sometimes the mechanics of HP do a poor job of reflecting in game logic and believability. Literally EVERYONE agrees with this.

What's the fundamental argument left?

There is none. There is no dissonance with hit points. Hit points are a game mechanic and that's all there is to it. They are a game mechanic that can be interpreted as needed, based on the situation and narrative of the game and imagination of the player.

They can be whatever one needs them to be in whatever situation.

The only absolute is reaching 0 hit points usually means death or in danger of dying. Otherwise, you have more than 0 which means your character is still a part of the game.

Your character is just some numbers on a piece of paper. Nothing more. You the player bring it to life and direct its motivation (for better or worse).

 

[Garthanos]

or you know instead of trying to fit a narrative to our preconceived notions of how the mechanics work we instead go with the most logical subordinate concept of hitpoints

Take two they are small take double damage from fire and also take the frightened condition in fact even if if you make the save against the one you can still get the other because stress/shock/fear can actually kill you and doesn't have to be absolute. Humans arent now frightened and now just not so... quit being so monotone with your predefined concept of what you want mechanics to represent.

Binary condition is less "real" feeling to me than the other.

 

[Garthanos]

if your fated to die by fire, and take double damage from it, what does the damage best represent in that case?

"best" represent... why do you think i need the complexity of having separate mechanics. For my lucky hero or my tough guy one or my skilled one there normal abilities/defense they resist with still can "Flavor" the rest.

 

[Garthanos]

"so what about you?"
"ah well minotaur gored me"
"oof thats smarts, so where did it get you"
"idk man, life, i just knew it was to much"

Game didnt force me to decide one way so my imagination failed...

like i said i tend not to disagree with players having total narrative control over what hitpoints and damage means for their character. i was never really arguing against that perspective. the only case where the rules explicitly state that one thing happens is that injury poison must be delivered through injury and contact poison by contact. but beyond that im sure players having free reign over what damage means to them is completely viable. personally i like to have players describe their attacks and damage against targets of their attacks or damage just because its fun to spread that narration around.

That is pretty much my core point of view... and yes that is why its fun to let everyone in on narrations (note there are players who do not always like to so having a defensive schtick you can play off of for them is good too)

 

[Garthanos]

What's the fundamental argument left?

Shrug? language use emphasis of phrasing not sure nerd stuff