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


log in or register to remove this ad


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

So much wrong here - let me start here.

Why does plate provide more AC than leather armor?
 


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
Well, they're not really wrong. HP are abstract. Full stop. Moldvay Basic defines HP as a pure abstraction where the HP you have is just a number until your character is dead. FWIW, I think that's the most honest description of HP in D&D.

Because the combat mechanics of D&D can never actually tell you anything about what is happening in the fiction of the game... hang on. Let me rephrase that. The combat mechanics of D&D can never actually tell you how anything happens in the fiction of the game (it can tell you what happened - you died) so adding in something like Armor DR presumes a correlation between the mechanics and the narrative that has never existed.

Orc hits character for 5 HP. What happened? You cannot actually tell me anything. Nothing in those mechanics tell me how that character lost 5 HP. Sure, you can craft a dozen different narratives that describe the HP loss, but, the mechanics don't actually prove or disprove any of those narratives.

Thus, adding in something like DR for armor ignores the primary basis of HP - that HP are an abstraction and, as such, defy reification.
 


Well, they're not really wrong. HP are abstract. Full stop. Moldvay Basic defines HP as a pure abstraction where the HP you have is just a number until your character is dead. FWIW, I think that's the most honest description of HP in D&D.

Because the combat mechanics of D&D can never actually tell you anything about what is happening in the fiction of the game... hang on. Let me rephrase that. The combat mechanics of D&D can never actually tell you how anything happens in the fiction of the game (it can tell you what happened - you died) so adding in something like Armor DR presumes a correlation between the mechanics and the narrative that has never existed.

Orc hits character for 5 HP. What happened? You cannot actually tell me anything. Nothing in those mechanics tell me how that character lost 5 HP. Sure, you can craft a dozen different narratives that describe the HP loss, but, the mechanics don't actually prove or disprove any of those narratives.

Thus, adding in something like DR for armor ignores the primary basis of HP - that HP are an abstraction and, as such, defy reification.

have you actually read the first post of this thread?
 


So HPs are popular because D&D is popular. (There is an element of circularity to this of course - one could argue that one of the reasons that D&D is popular is because they use HPs, but it's a part of a whole ecosystem.)
Yeh the ecosystem included quite a bit of other stuff that an Arguably better set of "simulation" mechanics didnt deliver on.
 


Remove ads

Top