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

[Tony Vargas]

what i said
your response
my retort
your rebuttal

Don't care.

you've created an abstraction "ball" and in the abstraction "ball" you listed the definition of what it "can be" which you stated as "any roughly spherical object" (2 related concepts; 1 abstract "object" and 1 specific "spherical" based on the definitions of those words) "used in" (a related concept and abstract) "a game" (a related concept and abstract) "whether made from" (a related concept and abstract), "synthetic or natural rubber, leather, or even horsehair" (a list of subordinate concepts of the "made from" abstraction).

Congratulations, you just parsed natural language as if it were code.

the reason why the subordinate concept of "pingpong ball" can not be added to the abstraction of "ball" is because you state that what the ball can be "made of" is any of those subordinate concepts listed by "made of" though im not sure if plastic counts as a specific concept under the abstract "synthetics" or not.

It wasn't an exhaustive list. A ping-pong ball totally belongs.

This is the mistake you're making with the explanation of hps. It's written in natural language, there's nothing to indicate the '4 things' you've been over-analyzing are an exhaustive list, and not just examples.

if you create associations that conflict with each other than your statement about those associations must change or your wrong

But what's "wrong" in the context of understanding an abstraction like hit points? As we're talking RPG rules that are /barely meant to be rules/, ("they're a starting point!") written in natural language, that're meant to be read for comprehension, not parsed in search of technicalities, "wrong" would mean misunderstanding them, not disproving them.

what this means for hitpoints is that anything stated about damage is a statement about hitpoints

Again, no, anything stated about damage is a statement about the attack that does that damage, which happens to be denominated in hps, so it can conveniently applied to creatures, who's abstract resistance to lethal attacks (and hazards, whatever), is also denominated in hps.

if a statement about hitpoints conflicts with a statement about damage, then that statement is wrong. hitpoints and damage might be correct in isolation, but if they depend on eachother, they must also not conflict with each other.

If a statement about hit points of damage denominating the lethality of an attack conflicts with a statement about hit points denominating a creature's resistance to lethal dangers, that's because one is a statement about an attack, and the other a statement about a creature.

 

[FrogReaver]

so i've said this a few times now after my last long reply to tony but this is it in a concise chunk

i came up with an explanation for hitpoints where any type of damage in any context of damage can still mean all 4 subordinate concepts of damage are at play at the same time. all you have to do is say that if a character takes any damage, regardless of source, regardless of context, that damage has an net effect where all 4 concepts of hitpoints are lowered. so say you have a blind deaf character who is stabbed. while they technically cant mentally react to damage before it happens, they can mentally react to losing physical durability by losing mental durability, will to live, and luck as a reaction to it, in fact its forced on them. this basically defuses any arguments i can make about how damage has to be one thing at any one time, but on the same token it means that the only way for damage to only apply to one subordinate concept of hitpoints is by being inconsistent with the idea that any form of damage applies to all 4 subordinate concepts of damage at the same time regardless of context.

You could do that but that’s changed the abstraction again.

 

[Arch-Fiend]

You could do that but that’s changed the abstraction again.

explain?

 

[Arch-Fiend]

Don't care.

Congratulations, you just parsed natural language as if it were code.

It wasn't an exhaustive list. A ping-pong ball totally belongs.

This is the mistake you're making with the explanation of hps. It's written in natural language, there's nothing to indicate the '4 things' you've been over-analyzing are an exhaustive list, and not just examples.

But what's "wrong" in the context of understanding an abstraction like hit points? As we're talking RPG rules that are /barely meant to be rules/, ("they're a starting point!") written in natural language, that're meant to be read for comprehension, not parsed in search of technicalities, "wrong" would mean misunderstanding them, not disproving them.

if you want to argue that your abstraction or hitpoints are open ended and thus anyone can add or subtract concepts from them any way they want to then first i would ask you to point out where the definition of these terms in the game state this but additionally id point out you dont state this in your own abstract. if someone was meant to take your definition of your abstract at face value and use it without ever being able to consult you on it, then your definition can not change (like i said it either has to change or its wrong, because your language does not presume to a reader that it is open ended, the term "whether" when applied to "made of" does not denote an open ended statement, it denotes a list of possibilities.

though honestly if you consider hitpoints open ended then frankly i dont know what your even arguing against me about, ultimately what i think about hitpoints doesnt matter if hitpoints can mean anything, sure you can say then if hitpoints means anything that when i say to someone else "this doesnt make logical sense within the context of the game" that you can point out the game doesent have logical limitations to the subject, but beyond that i and anyone else can say whatever hitpoints are for our own use when hitpoints subordinate concepts and damage's subordinate concepts are purely interpretive.

Again, no, anything stated about damage is a statement about the attack that does that damage, which happens to be denominated in hps, so it can conveniently applied to creatures, who's abstract resistance to lethal attacks (and hazards, whatever), is also denominated in hps.

If a statement about hit points of damage denominating the lethality of an attack conflicts with a statement about hit points denominating a creature's resistance to lethal dangers, that's because one is a statement about an attack, and the other a statement about a creature.

damage isint a statement about an attack, because damage does not only occur from attacks, damage occurs when something lowers a characters hitpoints, would you argue that a pit trap attacks a character? would you argue that the ground attacks the character when they fall? when a character is poisoned, is it attacking them or is it just doing damage? can you also prove that these are attacks by the games logic providing a source stating these are attacks?

if not, then damage is not a statement about an attack, damage is a statement about how hitpoints are lowered, we know this because the definition of hitpoints never mentions attacks. now the definition of damage does state attacks, but we know that other sources of damage exist in the game that arnt associated with attacks, not to mention damage isint specified as being defined as the result of attacks where its mentioned in its definition, what it states is that attacks do damage, that is an open ended statement because it doesn't state what damage is, it simply states where it can come from.

so far this leaves us with the conclusion we started with. damage is the related concept to hitpoints for hitpoints, and that because hitpoints is defined without open ended interpretation (until you can quote otherwise) as being an abstraction of the concepts "physical and mental durability, will to live, and luck" while damage has its own subordinate concepts. hitpoints and damage are representatives of those subordinate concepts, they can not be divorced from them in the statements about what these abstracts are defined as, and these concepts define that hitpoints are lowered by damage. if hitpoints cant divorce its subordinate concepts and damage can not divorce its subordinate concepts (specifically damage is never done without a type of damage specified) then it must be assumed that how damage lowers hitpoints is a defining characteristic of hitpoint's subordinate concepts. something like IRV (immunity, resistance, vulneribility) in this analysis is important to help clarify "how" as extra contexts, the same way my "blind and deaf" conditions on the character or "invisible and silent" conditions on the attacker are just extra context to clarify hitpoint's relationship with damage.

 

[Tony Vargas]

if you want to argue that your abstraction or hitpoints are open ended and thus anyone can add or subtract concepts from them any way

Just not an exhaustive list, so add to them, sure. Subtract from them? Not s'much, no.

if someone was meant to take your definition of your abstract at face value and use it without ever being able to consult you on it then your definition can not change

Y'mean, like if the guy who wrote the latest D&D hp blurb didn't have a twitter account?

though honestly if you consider hitpoints open ended then frankly i dont know what your even arguing

That they shouldn't be narrowed down to just one thing, perhaps?

And, of course, that, as 5e gives the DM unlimited narrative freedom, any dissonance between the mechanics and his narrative is on him. ;P

would you argue that a pit trap attacks a character?

(Actually, D&D has often had traps make attack rolls, but that's not important right now...)

would you argue that the ground attacks the character when they fall?

Well, if were the other-way round, the falling character might intentionally miss, and begin flying. (Apologies to the late, great Douglas Adams.)

damage isint a statement about an attack, because damage does not only occur from attacks, damage occurs when something lowers a characters hitpoints,

Yeah, I've been mostly pretty careful to say "attacks or hazards" or "lethal dangers" or other broader things. None of which are creatures, so the quibble is pointless. (though, it serves, ironically, as another example of taking, a, well, example as an exhaustive list)
Hit points may be a common, abstract measure used by the game to describe either the resilience of creatures in avoiding death or the lethality of the dangers they're avoiding. But, creatures (& things, when given hp) and attacks (and other deadly dangers) remain in different categories.

 

[FrogReaver]

explain?

The traditional hp abstraction has important properties that your modified hp abstraction does not possess.

Unless you can show a mapping of the important properties in the traditional hp abstraction onto your modified hp abstraction then structurally they are different abstractions.

Perhaps a similar mathematical example will help...

Consider the set of all positive integers. Now consider the set of all positive even integers. The properties of set of all positive integers are different than the set of all positive even integers. Consider division by 2. Fact: There exists some integer A in the set of all positive integers such that A divided by 2 is not an integer. This is not the case with the set of all even integers. Thus there is an important difference in the properties of the sets of all positive integers and all even integers.

The point of this exercise is to show you that a subset of a set can exhibit certain properties that are different than the original set. This is also the case with abstractions of hp. Just because you are picking some of the properties of the original hp abstraction doesn't mean that the properties of the new hp abstraction based on that subset of properties is the same.

Perhaps a similar computer science example will help....

In code you have a class. That class gets called in your actual program and it instantiates an object based on that class. There can be any number of objects created all with different parameters defined by the class. However, changing the code for the class to allow for some subset of objects to be instantiated that included in the possible objects instantiated by the original class doesn't make the 2 classes equivalent.

 

[Arch-Fiend]

Just not an exhaustive list, so add to them, sure. Subtract from them? Not s'much, no.

Y'mean, like if the guy who wrote the latest D&D hp blurb didn't have a twitter account?

That they shouldn't be narrowed down to just one thing, perhaps?

And, of course, that, as 5e gives the DM unlimited narrative freedom, any dissonance between the mechanics and his narrative is on him. ;P

(Actually, D&D has often had traps make attack rolls, but that's not important right now...)

Well, if were the other-way round, the falling character might intentionally miss, and begin flying. (Apologies to the late, great Douglas Adams.)

Yeah, I've been mostly pretty careful to say "attacks or hazards" or "lethal dangers" or other broader things. None of which are creatures, so the quibble is pointless. (though, it serves, ironically, as another example of taking, a, well, example as an exhaustive list)
Hit points may be a common, abstract measure used by the game to describe either the resilience of creatures in avoiding death or the lethality of the dangers they're avoiding. But, creatures (& things, when given hp) and attacks (and other deadly dangers) remain in different categories.

if A - B, and A=C,D,E,F while B= a stand in for any 1 or multiple of a longer list of letters which are used in context to what causes B. then A - B is an expression of C,D,E,F - anything which can be B. this assumes that B can be applied to C,D,E,F and my entire point has been exploring if anything else applied to A before - B which changes how - B applies to A would conflict with what we know about C,D,E,F as despite C,D,E,F not being defined in the game further than they = A, those terms have their own meaning and its implied we are meant to use them for their meaning otherwise they wouldnt be used at all as they serve no further purpose than to specify what A is representing. also A happens to be hitpoints and a property of creature's and B happens to be damage if that wasent obvious.

The traditional hp abstraction has important properties that your modified hp abstraction does not possess.

Unless you can show a mapping of the important properties in the traditional hp abstraction onto your modified hp abstraction then structurally they are different abstractions.

Perhaps a similar mathematical example will help...

Consider the set of all positive integers. Now consider the set of all positive even integers. The properties of set of all positive integers are different than the set of all positive even integers. Consider division by 2. Fact: There exists some integer A in the set of all positive integers such that A divided by 2 is not an integer. This is not the case with the set of all even integers. Thus there is an important difference in the properties of the sets of all positive integers and all even integers.

The point of this exercise is to show you that a subset of a set can exhibit certain properties that are different than the original set. This is also the case with abstractions of hp. Just because you are picking some of the properties of the original hp abstraction doesn't mean that the properties of the new hp abstraction based on that subset of properties is the same.

Perhaps a similar computer science example will help....

In code you have a class. That class gets called in your actual program and it instantiates an object based on that class. There can be any number of objects created all with different parameters defined by the class. However, changing the code for the class to allow for some subset of objects to be instantiated that included in the possible objects instantiated by the original class doesn't make the 2 classes equivalent.

could you find anything in the statement you are replying to with this where what i said is in conflict with what you outline in your reply? pick something specific out of what i said, tell me where its an example of changing the abstract, if you cant do that i have no way of knowing what you are referring to.

 

[FrogReaver]

i came up with an explanation for hitpoints where any type of damage in any context of damage can still mean all 4 subordinate concepts of damage are at play at the same time. all you have to do is say that if a character takes any damage, regardless of source, regardless of context, that damage has an net effect where all 4 concepts of hitpoints are lowered.

In response to your previous question. You have created a situation where the properties of the original abstraction are different than the properties of your new abstraction. In the original abstraction the subordinate concepts don't all need to be equal or even present in any instance of losing hp. In yours they do. Your additional property that all subordinate concepts are always equal in hp loss has thus changed the actual abstraction into a new one that is not equivalent, nor isomporphic to the original.

Keep in mind while we've been coliqually referring to this as equivalence the actual concept is isomprphism.

 

[Arch-Fiend]

In response to your previous question. You have created a situation where the properties of the original abstraction are different than the properties of your new abstraction. In the original abstraction the subordinate concepts don't all need to be equal or even present in any instance of losing hp. In yours they do. Your additional property that all subordinate concepts are always equal in hp loss has thus changed the actual abstraction into a new one that is not equivalent, nor isomporphic to the original.

Keep in mind while we've been coliqually referring to this as equivalence the actual concept is isomprphism.

i haven't created a new abstraction, if you do not quote what you are referring to i can not tell what of the 23 pages of my replies you are referring to as my new abstraction. in the post i think you are referring to i still don't see what your referring to.

are you saying that the 4 subordinate concepts of hitpoints do not all have to be equally effected by an attack? because i agree with you, but i stated that they can be regardless of what context damage takes if you interpret what damage means with regard to lowering hitpoints in that way.

again because i dont know exactly what your saying is a new abstract that im saying i dont really know how to reply to your accusation.

 

[Tony Vargas]

That's some pretty weak set theory - or was it meant to be symbolic logic? - but even were it solid it'd have no applicability to understanding the natural language explanation of hit points found in 5e.
(Let alone the original, more verbose, one)