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

[FrogReaver]

i haven't created a new abstraction, if you do not quote what you are referring to i can not tell what of the 23 pages of my replies you are referring to as my new abstraction.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

I quoted precisely what I was referencing.

 

[FrogReaver]

*
but mechanically hitpoints are a number of points that characters gain through the classes they take and the level they achieve in those classes plus a characters bonus from constitution, an ability statistic that is representative of endurance, which also applies itself to holding ones breath, march or labor for hours, go without sleep,

I would think of the con bonus as representing endurance even for the extra hp it gives.

 

[Arch-Fiend]

I quoted precisely what I was referencing.

ok so, what i say is that hitpoints where any type of damage in any context of damage can steal 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 a net effect where all 4 concepts of hitpoints are lowered.

your response is that i have created a situation where the properties of the original abstraction are different than the properties of my 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 mine they do.

can you explain how the abstraction where all subordinate properties of hitpoints being lowered evenly by damage whenever hitpoints are lowered by damage is a different abstraction than the abstraction for hitpoints in D&D? additionally can you explain where in the rules of the game that it implies that is not how the subordinate concepts of hitpoints are reduced by damage when hitpoints are reduced by damage? can you then explain how a character who is blind and deaf who is stabbed with a piercing weapon that hits them and deals piercing damage CAN NOT lower a character's physical durability? can you then explain how a character who takes psychic damage that lowers their hitpoints can not have their mental durability reduced? can you then explain how it changes the abstraction of hitpoints if a character who takes piercing damage while deaf and blind has their mental durability, luck and will to live lowered at the same rate as their physical durability as a reaction to having their physical durability lowered?

finally what use is hitpoints as an abstraction if as a gm or player we have no way of using hitpoints as an abstraction to describe how damage narrative effects our characters without changing the nature of the original abstraction because we decide the damage lowers all subordinate concepts evenly or not? can you tell me what the point of listing subordinate concepts to hitpoints is if we can not decide ourselves how it does then without changing the abstract into a new abstract?

 

[Arch-Fiend]

*
but mechanically hitpoints are a number of points that characters gain through the classes they take and the level they achieve in those classes plus a characters bonus from constitution, an ability statistic that is representative of endurance, which also applies itself to holding ones breath, march or labor for hours, go without sleep,

I would think of the con bonus as representing endurance even for the extra hp it gives.

the bonus that hitpoints gets from con is probably best understood as being a measure of endurance as most of what con describes itself as in other contexts (its use in checks) are all things related to our understanding of endurance, however what endurance translates into when increasing the subordinate concepts of hitpoints is a matter of what you think that endurance applies to, physical durability, mental durability, will to live, and luck. all the more theres no saying that the way hitpoints increases through con bonus has anything to do with how they increase based on experience through your class or creature type. the game just doesent flat out say what the hitpoints gained from class levels means other than whatever hitpoints are already defined as.

 

[FrogReaver]

ok so, what i say is that hitpoints where any type of damage in any context of damage can steal 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 a net effect where all 4 concepts of hitpoints are lowered.

your response is that i have created a situation where the properties of the original abstraction are different than the properties of my 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 mine they do.

Yep that's a recap.

can you explain how the abstraction where all subordinate properties of hitpoints being lowered evenly by damage whenever hitpoints are lowered by damage is a different abstraction than the abstraction for hitpoints in D&D?

Yes. The explanation is what I gave you in the post above. To summarize,
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. Essentially, that difference has a direct impact on narratives that can be established with each abstraction.

additionally can you explain where in the rules of the game that it implies that is not how the subordinate concepts of hitpoints are reduced by damage when hitpoints are reduced by damage?

Kind of. I shouldn't have to emphasize this fact but I guess I do. Game rules aren't typically written to tell you how things don't work. The most I can provide you are the rules for the abstraction 5e is using - which make no mention that all the subordinate concepts of the systems hp abstraction must be equal in every instance of hp loss. In fact we can find rules that suggest but never explicitly say the exact opposite - such that creatures normally show signs of battle when below half hp.

can you then explain how a character who is blind and deaf who is stabbed with a piercing weapon that hits them and deals piercing damage CAN NOT lower a character's physical durability?

Why would I need to explain that? Physical durability is included in the abstraction of hp. Characters most certainly can have their physical durability damaged as part of their hp loss.

can you then explain how a character who takes psychic damage that lowers their hitpoints can not have their mental durability reduced?

Same explanation as above.

can you then explain how it changes the abstraction of hitpoints if a character who takes piercing damage while deaf and blind has their mental durability, luck and will to live lowered at the same rate as their physical durability as a reaction to having their physical durability lowered?

That doesn't change the abstraction.. A single instance of hp loss can be narrated using any part of 5e's abstraction.

finally what use is hitpoints as an abstraction if as a gm or player we have no way of using hitpoints as an abstraction to describe how damage narrative effects our characters without changing the nature of the original abstraction because we decide the damage lowers all subordinate concepts evenly or not?

You are mixing up 2 concepts.

1. There is the concept of a specific abstraction, which has a specific structure and specific properties itself and includes specific subordinate concepts.

2. Then there is the concept of using one of those subordinate concpets to narratively explain an instance of the abstract hp mechanic.

You seem to be conflating these two things quite a bit. For example, the portion of your post I quoted right above this - you are asking why we can't 2 without changing 1. But no one is saying that 2 can't be done without changing 1. In fact, That's what's making this so hard to discuss, you keep bringing up examples of changing 2 as if it has anything to do with 1 at all.

can you tell me what the point of listing subordinate concepts to hitpoints is if we can not decide ourselves how it does then without changing the abstract into a new abstract?

We can decide that ourselves (in the context of the narrative, not in the context of the abstraction). What we cannot do is eliminate a unique subordinate concept from the abstraction without changing the abstraction. But that doesn't mean that in each narrative instance of hp loss that every subordinate concept must be present, only that they exist as possibilities that can explain any instance of hp loss.

In Conclusion,

I guess it might be best to explain it this way. The HP Abstraction includes all subordinate concepts and combinations of those concepts. Some subset of those concepts and combinations of them can be used in narrative to explain the hp loss.

To remove subordinate concepts or combinations of concepts from the abstraction then changes the abstraction - essentially reducing the set of possible explanations that can be used to narrate hp loss. To remove them in a specific narrative explanation has no effect on the abstraction.

To add a subordinate concept to an abstraction still allows for the subordinate concepts (and combinations of them) that were available before but also new ones that weren't available before. To add a subordinate concept to a specific narrative explanation has no effect on the abstraction (unless it was a concept not originally included in the abstraction to begin with).

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Just my, probably marginally useful, commentary. I think there are 2 basically disjoint things here. First is the game and it's rules, second is the narrative.
In rules terms HP represent a fairly abstract assessment of 'nearness to defeat'. Any factor related to that could be reflected as 'damage'. All versions of d&d are fuzzy here because they have other measures as well. 4e has conditions and effects for example. There is also inevitably fictional position as well.
Fiction/narrative is its own thing. There must be some concordance with mechanics to produce outcomes we expect but the nature of the coupling depends on goals, taste, style, etc. You can't discuss hit points in a vacuum. You can't even generalize across editions really.