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

[Garthanos]

And Iaijutsu duel between two master samurai, not so well.

Hit points lost while they stare at each other wearing down each others confidence with intimidation.

 

[Don Durito]

Arch-Fiend I have to ask, is there some reason you're choosing to not use punctuation?

I'm finding your reply to me above far too difficult to parse clearly.

 

[FrogReaver]

if you are arguing that hitpoints is a complete abstraction with no narrative bias to what actually happens when applying damage it hitpoints besides "hitpoints are lower now" and leaves it up to the dm to decide, then my thesis doesent disagree with you besides implying that hp isint described as being that abstract in the game and that damage is certainly not very reflective of an abstraction however damage also doesent reflect the narrative i argued hitpoints support.

The mechanic alone is completely abstract. The DM provides the fictional reality giving it a basis in the fiction on each occasion that the mechanic is invoked.

Again - Damage is just the loss of HP. If a certain type of damage requires a certain fictional element to make sense then the DM narrates that fictional element into existence.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Hit points lost while they stare at each other wearing down each others confidence with intimidation.

Which is a completely valid narrative.

 

[FrogReaver]

probably shouldn't imply that you speak for everyone. you like to site how everyone has your back as if its an argument against my ideas, its not, its just a logical fallacy

Amazing that this is the response I get and nothing about the primary points I was making. If you want others to continue to talk about your primary points then you should address there's as well.

 

[Don Durito]

Hit points lost while they stare at each other wearing down each others confidence with intimidation.

Then shouldn't they be making attack rolls with intimidation?

I guess you could do it like the first fight in Hero, with both parties working through the future fight in their head - anticipating angle of attacks and counters.

But this has oddities too. It needs an agreement not to follow the rules in their normal sense (because it wouldn't make any sense to quaff a healing potion in the middle of a staredown).

In this case I don't think it models Iajutsu well. It would become to obvious who was going to win before blades were drawn - you'd want to keep more tension at work. (Some kind of bidding system)

In any case, the "damage" taken is very abstract as well here.

In the case of the knights it's actually very easy to explain HP loss as minor physical damage - which is ultimately the most consistent with the rules as a whole. (The rules reflect a clear narrative).

 

[Tony Vargas]

so "hitpoints are a representation of the endurance expended by a character to avoid taking a lethal blow" is suspended to an extent simply for the rule that allows poison to take effect? that seems very convenient.

Convenient, abstract, simple - take your pick.
But the key word you may be sliding over is "lethal" expending hps to avoid lethal injury may well not negate minor injury.
Of course, it depends on the nature of the mechanics if the specific poison.
If it just does additional hps, yeah, you might be completely avoiding even a scratch, because you need to.
If you're talkin' a 1e poison save, EGG had additional explanations for that: the poison save, itself determined whether the 'damage' taken included an actual scratch to hypothetically admit the venom.

 

[Arch-Fiend]

If we're thinking of D&D combat as modelling reality (which we probably shouldn't) then the reality it best models is two knights in heavy armour bashing away at each other's armour until finally one drops from an accumulation of bruises and minor fractures or is finally struck a telling blow through the gaps in the armour.

And Iaijutsu duel between two master samurai, not so well.

what? you never looked at 5E - Realistic/Historic armor for D&D (Homebrew) ? you know its fun right? im not supose to give my opinion, but give it a look, and then you can tell me if its good or not. not convinced yet? ok ill cut you a deal the homebrew is available for free, and thats a great price!

also sorry i do run on sentences a lot, force of habit, i learned how comas worked then forgot how periods worked.

Amazing that this is the response I get and nothing about the primary points I was making. If you want others to continue to talk about your primary points then you should address there's as well.

i had already addressed your points about it being abstract in an earlier reply, you actually replied to it while i was writing the reply about how you like to use "everyone agrees with me" as an argument, so technically i did address your other points.

Ok, let's examine this point then. Damage isn't clearly physical. I'll repeat part of my post #4:


This narrative shows how damage done by a thrown rock from a giant didn't physically harm the character (at least not directly, the "shards of stinging stone" is physical but not necessary really). Weapon attacks of any kind don't have to by physically damaging. The reduction in hit points from the weapon can be reflected in the energy it takes to move so the killing blow is just a scratch, etc.

Since hit points don't have to represent physical damage taken, neither does the damage done by a weapon, fire, poison, or any other agent. It can be, certainly, but it doesn't have to be. That damage can just as easily be narrated as luck, skill, energy, etc. depleted by the target of the damage.

Now, a couple sessions ago a druid had wild-shaped into a giant eagle. I critical hit was narrated as the shaft piercing the form (the druid-eagle hp was reduced to 0) and then the druid fell over 50 feet! The druid was already injured and nearly went nearly to 0 hp himself (IIRC he had 4 hp left after the fall).

It is certainly possible for people to fall 50 feet or more and survive, it is well documented. But how to narrate this damage? The DM decided "luck" was primarily the exhausted factor, as branches broke much of his fall and the actual physical damage was described as bumps and bruises, and having the wind knocked out of him.

The point is there are all sorts of ways to narrate damage from any source and how the damage is mitigated to the loss of hp is part of that.

so did the axe shattering deal piercing damage as shrapnel or slashing? because if it didint doing slashing then it wasent the axe that hit you, but something DID clearly hit you in that example in order to deal damage. so how do you use the rules for damage in D&D as if nothing ever hits your character until the attack that knocks them into death saving? yes weapon damage does not HAVE to be damage made by the weapon, but the way weapons are designed, and the way damage is implied to work is all reflective of a narrative where your being hit by the weapon. you can play the game as if its not hitting, because hitpoints are ultimately abstracted (so you think) to the point of being whatever you want them to be regardless of what removes them. my thesis doesent say damage has to be what damage is, my thesis says damage looks best to resemble doing "blank" and thus does not reflect well on the idea that hitpoints represent "blank".

 

[FrogReaver]

i had already addressed your points about it being abstract in an earlier reply, you actually replied to it while i was writing the reply about how you like to use "everyone agrees with me" as an argument, so technically i did address your other points.

You mean the one where you tried to dismiss them by saying something akin to "but damage isn't abstract"

If that's the one then you certainly didn't address my rebuttal that was in the points you skipped past in order to make your personal point about me.

 

[Arch-Fiend]

im going to add this here, theres a reason why damage mechanics seem to reflect bodily harm being done to a character rather than being completely abstract, that reason is because injuries give a lot more options to a game designer to create complex gameplay, this is why things such as multiple types of weapon damage exist in 5e, why there's so many types of elemental damage, why weapons deal different kinds of damage and have different properties. its interesting to a player, but additionally it does reflect the nature of what those attacks actually do. no fluke of game design that these elements are here in a way that very much reflects how they would act when compared to all the other weapons in the game