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

[Umbran]

Another alternative is rocket tag - where actual hits are relatively rare, but it only takes one hit, maybe two if you’re lucky, to take you down. That would be a more direct mechanical interpretation of the narrative that abstract HP creates.

I'd say that abstract HP don't create any single narrative.

My support is simple - if they did, on their own, create a single narrative, then, by now after decades, we'd all pretty much agree on that narrative. But we don't - we have this discussion of what HP are over and over, time and again.

I think it is more accurate to say that HP, and the various descriptions and mechanics that work with them, provide an inconsistent picture. Whichever elements of that picture a given player likes best, or finds more problematic, become the dominant one in that player's image of Hit Points. We wind up disagreeing about them so much specifically because they aren't any one thing. They are abstract enough that they allow a number of narratives, none of which fit perfectly.

I, personally, am okay with that. For D&D, it works well enough.

 

[FrogReaver]

then i certainly hope the conclusion of my research and analysis isint being judged without proper evaluation of the sources i draw my conclusion from

RESEARCH????? All you did was try to think through the game mechanics and failed pretty horribly at a good chunk of that.

Let me sum up this thread. You: "I think D&D hp work this way. Therefore, there is dissonance. Therefore my proposal is better."

Except we are all back at step 1 saying but D&D hp don't work the way you describe and we have all analyzed this same issue countless times over the years.

 

[Arch-Fiend]

RESEARCH????? All you did was try to think through the game mechanics and failed pretty horribly at a good chunk of that.

Let me sum up this thread. You: "I think D&D hp work this way. Therefore, there is dissonance. Therefore my proposal is better."

Except we are all back at step 1 saying but D&D hp don't work the way you describe and we have all analyzed this same issue countless times over the years.

i never made a preposal i simply dissected a cause for a problem, i did the legwork looking at how the mechanics work, if you have a counter arguement to what i actually said about the mechanics rather than simply saying i dont know what im talking about with nothing to back it up and a clear misunderstanding of what i said consitering you assume something is there that isint, then id love to hear what you think.

no one has said D&D hitpoints does not work the way i described it as working because in my thesis i described D&D hitpoints working EXACTLY the way everyone has been saying it works, what i did after that was show the DAMAGE mechanics do not reinforce the narrative for how D&D hitpoint mechanics are abstracted. 90% of my thesis is talking about damage, not hitpoints. these are things you would know if you read intead of felt what you think i said.

 

[FrogReaver]

Honestly, I could get behind a thread that says armor in D&D doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

Realistically - Plate isn't going to do a thing to stop a giant from cutting you in half with his axe. Yet plate still boosts your AC against said attack higher than the non-plate wearing PC - despite no additional protective power of plate against a Giants Axe.

Heck - in the vast majority of cases against really large enemies armor will offer no real protection - so no AC nor DR.

Against say goblins either AC or DR or a combination of both work just fine.

I don't have a potential fix yet. But the problem I think is less hp oriented and more that the idea of universal Armor in D&D makes little to no sense.

 

[Tony Vargas]

this kinda assumes that ac is all of the things about a characters defense that does not require effort for them to expend in order to avoid lethal attacks.

Interesting.

this would imply resistance and immunity gives you omniscience about sources of damage if they will or wont hurt you. cant think of an explanation for vulnerability though?

Are damage types all that obscure?
Especially if the resistance or vulnerability is natural the extra effort or lack thereof could be a reflex.
Like how you touch something hot, you don't have to determine it's not, remember that hot things burn and choose to snatch hour hand away, you just do.

The exception where you might expend effort to avoid an attack out of all proportion to the real danger might be psychic damage and illusions that inflict up damage.

if your implying that the fact that you are avoiding greater danger in the form of a higher damage has an impact on how much effort you must put into avoiding the attack then i think...now the very possibility of danger has a physical impact on a characters ability to avoid lethal injury.

No, remember: hps and the ablation thereof are not primarily physical. There's no inconsistency there.

additionally there's no explanation for how poison can be transmitted by injury if technically you cant be injured until you run out of hitpoints

Technically you can't take lethal injury until then. You could get a scratch or skin contact sufficient to transmit a poison that has a affect other than to damage... of course some "poison damage" that us just go could be because if the extremity of avoiding so much as a scratch.

nor does it explain how the hitpoints that poison drains from you as it kills you is drawn from the same source as the metaphysical force of damage possibility reducing your characters endurance.

Being poisoned could easily erode your endurance.

Remember, you can briefly say "hps are endurance" or something as a shorthand, but it's an abstract mechanic that could represent any factor that helps you avoid or minimize the effects of what would otherwise be a deadly attack (and, I think, it helps to remember that, for instance, a dagger is absolutely a deadly weapon, but only gets a d4).
By the same token, bestowing any such factor, not only restoring endurance or literally healing a scratch, could reasonably restore hps.

Since the DM has a free hand in narrating results, and the mechanics if combat are so abstract, he can choose to keep the narrative in line with the mechanics (or vice versa) to the degree he's comfortable with.

 

[darjr]

HP does inform the narrative. Not directly no. But losing them means you’re headed towards losing the fight.

 

[FrogReaver]

no one has said D&D hitpoints does not work the way i described it as working because in my thesis i described D&D hitpoints working EXACTLY the way everyone has been saying it works, what i did after that was show the DAMAGE mechanics do not reinforce the narrative for how D&D hitpoint mechanics are abstracted. 90% of my thesis is talking about damage, not hitpoints. these are things you would know if you read intead of felt what you think i said.

But we aren't just saying that we think hp work that way. We are saying you are incorrect about the reasons you cite.

Take your poison example. All the presence of poision means is that any successful attack roll with a poisoned weapon will always inflict a minor cut somewhere on the enemy. Poison issue is really a non-issue. D&D HP forces you to come up with fiction to make everything make sense. That's what I've been saying since I came in this thread. That's the answer to all your objections.

Just to make it 100% clear - D&D hp is not a simulationist mechanic. You can't take the loss of hp and apply any kind of consistent meaning to the loss of hp - because the meaning of hp loss is ambiguous until fictionally narrated.

 

[Umbran]

these are things you would know if you read intead of felt what you think i said.

I understand you probably mean well enough. However, you presented a thousand-plus word piece on a discussion messageboard - your presentation does not match well with the medium and local culture, neither of which which handle long-form presentation well. Accept that, and maybe you can still get something useful out of this.

Getting huffy at folks for not absorbing everything you intended out of your piece is not going to end in constructive discussion for you.

 

[DND_Reborn]

i mostly made this thesis because of everyone telling me i was wrong to introduce DR to armor in homebrew because "thats not how hitpoints work" but i also wanted to explain why it makes more sense for armor to function as dr when damage in the game functions more like it injures your body rather than your character losing stamina from dodging a deadly attack or a metaphysical hands of the gods protecting you until the other guy's gods win and you end up dead

Really? Huh I guess I missed that as your intent. In that light, there is nothing wrong with armor as DR (HAM anyone?) but the DR is already baked into the AC granted by the armors.

That was why one house-ruled we tried granted DR to armors, but also lowered AC values.

 

[FrogReaver]

Really? Huh I guess I missed that as your intent. In that light, there is nothing wrong with armor as DR (HAM anyone?) but the DR is already baked into the AC granted by the armors.

That was why one house-ruled we tried granted DR to armors, but also lowered AC values.

Agreed... Well not anything additionaly wrong with it. There's still all the things inherently wrong with D&D armor to begin with