Rebuild 1E...

[Gentlegamer]

I stand by my point that hit points do prevent one-shot kills of competent characters, but that this was discovered over time to be a good thing for most games; it was not the original intent of the mechanic, which was really just a way for a "hero" to be as powerful as four 0-level guys, and a "super-hero" to be as powerful as eight.

The first part of your statement doesn't jive with the conclusion you reach from the second part. A Hero being as powerful as four men most certainly prevents "one shot" kills of the Hero. This is deliberate.

 

[mmadsen]

A Hero being as powerful as four men most certainly prevents "one shot" kills of the Hero.

There are plenty of monsters as powerful as four men -- or as powerful as four "units" of men -- who die by one well-placed shot. We don't expect them to die to the first attack against them, but one well-placed shot can kill them.

 

[Raven Crowking]

You might want to borrow a mechanic from Buffy, used for staking vampires: multiply damage by some big factor (e.g. five), but only apply that bonus damage if it's enough to kill the victim.

The mechanic I am using works vey well in context; we could fork the topic to go further along these lines, if you like.

 

[Celebrim]

There are plenty of monsters as powerful as four men -- or as powerful as four "units" of men -- who die by one well-placed shot. We don't expect them to die to the first attack against them, but one well-placed shot can kill them.

One of the best Professors I ever had taught Medieval History, and one of the things he continually hammered on was our implicit assumption that everything that was done in the past was done out of ignorance and stupidity. Whenever we would try to explain history by means of saying that those people back then were not as knowledgable or as intelligent as we are, he'd continually bring up examples that demonstrated that they had made a deliberate choice amongst several alternatives.

I am very hestitant to pronounce that the people who did something with an obvious consequence did so completely unknowing of the consequences.

(Somewhat off topic but, I'm generally skeptical of the idea of 'unforeseen consequences', and whenever I hear it used as a defense of some course of action where someone pointed out the likely consequences and it wasn't heeded, my general feeling is that they indeed knew what would happen but they didn't want anyone to know that they knew what would happen. 'Unforeseen consquences' usually aren't.)

In this case, we started with the notion that the original designers of D&D had not deliberately sat out to create superheroes, and your defense of that position now includes the claim "which was really just a way for a 'hero' to be as powerful as four 0-level guys, and a 'super-hero' to be as powerful as eight."

If they didn't mean something to be a super-hero, perhaps they would have used a different mechanic, or even well, a different name, maybe? For example, if the intent was just to create heros with better attack and defence, but which could not endure more hits, then bonuses to attack and defense could have been employed. The notion of being able to take more hits did not need to be applied, and I'm sure that they knew that it didn't need to be applied. The mechanic we know as 'hit die' was adopted because they knew from experience it made for a better game.

 

[mmadsen]

Somewhat off topic but, I'm generally skeptical of the idea of 'unforeseen consequences', and whenever I hear it used as a defense of some course of action where someone pointed out the likely consequences and it wasn't heeded, my general feeling is that they indeed knew what would happen but they didn't want anyone to know that they knew what would happen. 'Unforeseen consquences' usually aren't.

While I agree that "unforeseen consequences" can be an example of "plausible deniability", I strongly believe that complex systems routinely exhibit much more complex behavior than people expect -- and the way that we handle such systems is to repeat whatever seems to be working and to stop doing whatever doesn't seem to be working. Hence, tradition -- which is equated with superstition now, but which was considered vital to almost every society throughout history.

Anyway, that's an aside, although it may provide useful context for my "real" point.

In this case, we started with the notion that the original designers of D&D had not deliberately sat out to create superheroes, and your defense of that position now includes the claim "which was really just a way for a 'hero' to be as powerful as four 0-level guys, and a 'super-hero' to be as powerful as eight."

If they didn't mean something to be a super-hero, perhaps they would have used a different mechanic, or even well, a different name, maybe?

I think you're arguing past me, because you assume that anyone kill-able in one shot is weak and not powerful -- which is indeed the case in a game like D&D, with its escalating hit points.

My point was not that proto-D&D made heroes powerful by accident. That was the intent. My point was that the manner in which it made them powerful created "unrealistic" consequences.

Again, the problem is not that a hero is powerful; it's that the nature of his power is, in effect, immunity to the first three hits he takes.

If the hero's power had been reflected in a huge to-hit bonus, that wouldn't have felt jarringly unrealistic. If the hero's power had been reflected in a huge defensive (AC) bonus, so they he only got hit one-fourth as often, that wouldn't have felt jarringly unrealistic either.

In fact, he could have been even more powerful, while remaining far more plausible. High power does not mean low realism, and low power does not mean high realism. It depends on the nature of that power.

 

[evildmguy]

My point was not that proto-D&D made heroes powerful by accident. That was the intent. My point was that the manner in which it made them powerful created "unrealistic" consequences.

Again, the problem is not that a hero is powerful; it's that the nature of his power is, in effect, immunity to the first three hits he takes.

If the hero's power had been reflected in a huge to-hit bonus, that wouldn't have felt jarringly unrealistic. If the hero's power had been reflected in a huge defensive (AC) bonus, so they he only got hit one-fourth as often, that wouldn't have felt jarringly unrealistic either.

In fact, he could have been even more powerful, while remaining far more plausible. High power does not mean low realism, and low power does not mean high realism. It depends on the nature of that power.

Okay, it's taken me years to understand hit points and while I am specifically quoting mmadsen, this goes to any 1E players who want a low level minion to be able to kill anyone at any time.

What?

DND has never tried to be a realistic combat simulator. As someone else said, one hit kills are great for a book but are anticlimactic for a game. They should be avoided with PCs and understood that they won't happen. This isn't bad. It's about understanding the system.

Further, specifically talking about what mmadsen said, having a high AC to avoid damage makes no sense! Armor, historically speaking, is about about avoiding damage. It's about making sure a hit isn't fatal or debilitating. Making sure the wearer survives the hits he will take with the weapons of the time. (In European history, at least.)

I could argue that only DMs want this, not players, because there were several Dragon articles back in the day to help DMs who have players that go around with all items or armor to have a -10 or who cast and had stoneskin on themselves all of the time! I had one such player and ended up using some of those ideas.

But, this was a failure on my part to gain trust with my players. Trust that I wouldn't do a one hit kill on them as they are walking down the street to go to the market, something I forced on them as the DM anyway, instead of them sending a servant. Further, in the years of DMing, I have had villains fall to a failed saving throw, rather than trying to make it epic. In most cases, the players complained that they didn't get a final battle with the bad guy!

That's the point that hit points serve. It's just too bad, again as someone else pointed out, that the spell casters are given a game mechanic to bypass this aspect of the game with save or die effects. That is definitely something I would remove from 1E if I were to run it again.

What I never liked about hit points was how a character is either fine or dead or dying. I couldn't do a scene like Out of Gas from Firefly because nothing gives penalties in 1E.

The other problem is that there is a very big divide between role playing and the game mechanics. The entire class system with its hit points does not allow for a certain level of realism. There are no broken bones. There are no concussions. There are no realistic wounds.

Further, all RPGs that I have read don't allow for details in combat to give a combatant an advantage. There is no way to notice that a fighter is using fighting style A and so if the opponent uses fighting style B, it will help counter A. It doesn't work that way. And only by understanding what the system does and doesn't do can a group make it work they way they want it to for their games.

If people really want to have a game that allows for one shot hits by anyone on anyone, then they should try WoD or Alternity, which rocks for SciFi and would allow for the Firefly scene I described above.

Despite my tone, I am not down on 1E as much as I used to be. Understanding it better now, decades later, I could run it and have a lot of fun with it. And I can explain away the stuff I don't like as this being version 1.0!

Good discussion! Thanks!

edg

 

[evildmguy]

There was another point I had meant to make but forgot.

The other divide in DND, as a class based system, was that only high level NPCs could hold their domains against the PCs. What I mean is, there was a divide between political power and combat power. Since DND has always increased combat ability with each level, and has no concept of political power in game terms, it's very difficult to use social interactions as a mean of establishing a hierarchy.

In other words, if the king of the kingdom wasn't at least as high as the PCs, there were no other game mechanics to stop the PCs from taking over with brute force. As an adult, I could probably reason with my other adult players to understand that and leave well enough alone, without resorting to making NPCs high level. However, as a new DM or playing when I was younger, I had players who thought "might makes right" and they always wanted to solve things with a fight, knowing the NPCs weren't as powerful as them.

Again, it's a flaw of the system but knowing it, it's easier to work around.

edg

 

[Celebrim]

While I agree that "unforeseen consequences" can be an example of "plausible deniability", I strongly believe that complex systems routinely exhibit much more complex behavior than people expect

I agree. However, I don't think that harms my point any. For it to be truly "unforeseen consequences", it must exhibit behavior which is counter-intuitive and which is not well known to people familiar in complex systems of that type. When the outcome of a decision is intuitive, or when the behavior is familiar to experts in complex systems of that type, then the consequences can't be said to be 'unforeseen'. True 'unforeseen consequences' mainly occur in areas which are poorly understood even by those familiar with them.

For example, in my local community a law was recently passed that allowed for the construction of a casino. The selling point that finally got this law passed was that it would bring 3000 jobs to the community, which is a strong selling point when the economy is down. I could forgive anyone without the slightest knowledge of complex economic systems for believing that the intended consequence (3000 new jobs) is what would actually happen, but anyone with the slightest understanding of economics ought to know better and indeed anyone who even stepped back and used their intuition ought to know better. The inevitable consequence of a casino is at best no net gain in jobs and likely the net loss of hundreds of jobs. Anyone that has studied economics (the study of a particular type of complex system) knows that the 3000 new jobs depend on people spending money at the casino. That money will in turn not be spent at other places of business in the city, and in turn that will mean those places of business will lose jobs. And anyone with a 'common sense' understanding will know that casinos are associated with poverty, corruption, and crime at the community level, and not prosperity. For example, it's a stock movie trope that if the town has fallen on hard times, a casino appears. That trope represents the 'common sense' understanding of the community. I find it very improbable that the designers of the system actually believe their own claims about bringing prosperity to the system. I find it much more likely that the 'unforeseen' consequences of the system chance are known, but that they just don't care.

I think you're arguing past me, because you assume that anyone kill-able in one shot is weak and not powerful...

If that is the sole basis of your belief that I'm arguing past you, then you are clearly wrong.

-- which is indeed the case in a game like D&D, with its escalating hit points.

And if you believe what you claim to believe, that is a bizarre statement.

My point was not that proto-D&D made heroes powerful by accident. That was the intent. My point was that the manner in which it made them powerful created "unrealistic" consequences.

Yes, I know. And I didn't claim that you thought that proto-D&D made heroes powerful by accident. I claimed that you thought that the manner in which it made them powerful had unforeseen unrealistic consequences, and I claimed that you were wrong. I made the claim that the manner in which heroes were made powerful in proto-D&D was carefully selected from the available options, and the consequences (that the hero could survive several blows) was the preferred consequence by the designers.

I find it really interesting where you cut off quoting me. Right after I wrote, "...different mechanic, or even well, a different name, maybe?", I said:

"For example, if the intent was just to create heros with better attack and defence, but which could not endure more hits, then bonuses to attack and defense could have been employed. The notion of being able to take more hits did not need to be applied, and I'm sure that they knew that it didn't need to be applied. The mechanic we know as 'hit die' was adopted because they knew from experience it made for a better game. "

So, no, you are not talking past me, but it seems that I'm talking past you.

Clearly I understood that there are alternatives to "immunity to the first three hits he takes". Clearly I understood that the alternatives of "a huge to-hit bonus" or "a huge defensive (AC) bonus" where available. What you don't seem to understand is that the designers of Proto-D&D also understood that these alternatives were available and rejected them as unsatisfying in actual play. And further more, you don't seem to understand that the consequences of that - "immunity to the first three hits" - was something that was very much foreseen, understood, and accepted as what was best for the game.

Moreover, I claim that the history of gaming confirms the wisdom of that decision, as virtually every computer RPG system (and many PnP systems) since then has adopted this mechanic as their own precisely because it makes for good gaming - even if it defies intuitive understanding of what is 'realistic' or 'plausible'.

 

[mmadsen]

Okay, it's taken me years to understand hit points and while I am specifically quoting mmadsen, this goes to any 1E players who want a low level minion to be able to kill anyone at any time.

What?

I do not want a low-level minion to typically kill anyone with one shot at any time. I believe a low-level minion should have some chance to kill a competent character who does not have plot-protection with one "lucky" arrow in the eye, or whatever -- without side-stepping most of the combat system and making an ad hoc DM call.

That is, when an elite unit of Uruk-hai pikemen holds the pass against a similarly elite unit of Gondorian knights, some of them should fall in the first clash.

The knights who do fall should not include our intrepid PCs -- but they should be at risk of losing hard-to-replace plot-protection resources, so they have little incentive to abuse their plot-protection "unrealistically".

That's the point that hit points serve. It's just too bad, again as someone else pointed out, that the spell casters are given a game mechanic to bypass this aspect of the game with save or die effects. That is definitely something I would remove from 1E if I were to run it again.

That someone else was me.

 

[mmadsen]

And if you believe what you claim to believe, that is a bizarre statement.

I'm sorry, I have no idea what you mean.

And further more, you don't seem to understand that the consequences of that - "immunity to the first three hits" - was something that was very much foreseen, understood, and accepted as what was best for the game.

I don't believe the nature of escalating hit points was well understood at the time, because many, many not-stupid game designers tried to improve on D&D by removing them or reducing them, without understanding what purpose they did serve, only what "unrealistic" consequences they caused.

And I suggest that D&D's own designers did not quite understand what purpose hit points served, because they devised a very different mechanism for surviving other kinds of danger -- saving throws.

Moreover, I claim that the history of gaming confirms the wisdom of that decision, as virtually every computer RPG system (and many PnP systems) since then has adopted this mechanic as their own precisely because it makes for good gaming - even if it defies intuitive understanding of what is 'realistic' or 'plausible'.

That is my point. Hit points do work, in a way that matters for the game, whether or not people understand why -- but, if we gain a better understanding of how they do and do not work, we can devise something with the strengths of a hit-point system without the weaknesses.