D&D General Reification versus ludification in 5E/6E

[Sepulchrave II]

We look at action movies for rationalization. John McClane, Indiana Jones, Rambo etc get punched, kicked, shot, stabbed, blown up, thrown out of moving vehicles etc and somehow manage to survive stuff that unnamed mooks die from instantly.

I'm not in disagreement. It's why I wrote

The nature of hit point damage is not objective; it is contingent upon the particulars of the one sustaining it. The best thing that can be done is narrate a "vaguely plausible" effect in-game, and not subject that narration to any kind of logical scrutiny.

But I think that attempts to define how precisely much is actual "meat" and how much is "Yippy Ki-Yay - I'm actually okay" are doomed to fail. I don't like this "half of your hit points are physical" thing, as it introduces unneeded specificity into a system which works best when it's left purposely vague, and creates more logical problems than it solves.

 

[Bae'zel]

But I think that attempts to define how precisely much is actual "meat" and how much is "Yippy Ki-Yay - I'm actually okay" are doomed to fail. I don't like this "half of your hit points are physical" thing, as it introduces unneeded specificity into a system which works best when it's left purposely vague, and creates more logical problems than it solves.

That's too bad. It works great for us, reduces a lot of confusion for us, and nothing in the game, even stuff like rapid healing with short/long rests, bothers us. "Cure wounds", "inflict injury", "bloodied", poison damage etc.. all makes more sense to us this way.

If people are ok with leaving HP as a "handwavey quirk of D&D", ie, "D&D gamers don't talk about HP", then high fives all around.

Again, your stance is the norm in the hobby, I'm not debating that. I feel that it is unfortunate, but hey whatever.

 

[Hussar]

@Bae'zel - I think that the stumbling point for me of what you are doing is that you have no problem rationalizing a thousand inconsistencies. Which makes it hard to understand why one more inconsistency would be a problem.

Now since you’ve been very clear that this only applies to your table, that’s fine. The bigger problem is when people take your interpretation and insist that this is the “true” interpretation instead of simply one of many and insist that this interpretation must be adhered to when designing rules.

 

[Lanefan]

That's too bad. It works great for us, reduces a lot of confusion for us, and nothing in the game, even stuff like rapid healing with short/long rests, bothers us. "Cure wounds", "inflict injury", "bloodied", poison damage etc.. all makes more sense to us this way.

Same here except for the far-too-fast recovery through simple resting, which we don't use. For us, an overnight (or "long") rest gets back 10% of your total hp, rounded up and a brief breather after a combat in which you took damage gets you back a very small number (usually 1-4) of hit points unless you're close to 0.

 

[Pedantic]

@Bae'zel - I think that the stumbling point for me of what you are doing is that you have no problem rationalizing a thousand inconsistencies. Which makes it hard to understand why one more inconsistency would be a problem.

Now since you’ve been very clear that this only applies to your table, that’s fine. The bigger problem is when people take your interpretation and insist that this is the “true” interpretation instead of simply one of many and insist that this interpretation must be adhered to when designing rules.

HP is always an interesting razor, because both sides of the meat debate tend to firmly believe their approach is the obviously intuitive one, and look at the rest of the rules/fiction and say "but if we did it your way, all this stuff doesn't make any sense." The difference is whether they're looking into the attack rules and working backwards from hits and misses, or looking at something like the resting rules or thinking about how actually getting hit with a sword works.

 

[Hussar]

HP is always an interesting razor, because both sides of the meat debate tend to firmly believe their approach is the obviously intuitive one, and look at the rest of the rules/fiction and say "but if we did it your way, all this stuff doesn't make any sense." The difference is whether they're looking into the attack rules and working backwards from hits and misses, or looking at something like the resting rules or thinking about how actually getting hit with a sword works.

The decision difference being, hp are abstract is demonstrably less inconsistent. It only starts to not make sense when you start adding in all sorts of elements that shouldn’t be added in.

Iow, no these two things are not equal.

 

[Bae'zel]

The decision difference being, hp are abstract is demonstrably less inconsistent. It only starts to not make sense when you start adding in all sorts of elements that shouldn’t be added in.

Iow, no these two things are not equal.

LOL I feel the exact opposite. We feel that hp as "meat points" is demonstrably more consistent.

We'll have to agree to disagree, I guess.

Once again, I'll assure you that my "side" seems to be the minority, and you are the majority. You've already won this debate, I'm just evidence that D&D hobbyists are clearly not a monolith.

@Bae'zel - I think that the stumbling point for me of what you are doing is that you have no problem rationalizing a thousand inconsistencies. Which makes it hard to understand why one more inconsistency would be a problem.

Now since you’ve been very clear that this only applies to your table, that’s fine. The bigger problem is when people take your interpretation and insist that this is the “true” interpretation instead of simply one of many and insist that this interpretation must be adhered to when designing rules.

We don't see them as inconsistencies. Quite the opposite. We feel that HP as abstract luck or whatever has MORE inconsistencies, not just one. I've mentioned several.

I've not seen this wave of "HP are meat points, that's the TRUTH" enthusiasts. If anything, I've found it very rare.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

LOL I feel the exact opposite. We feel that hp as "meat points" is demonstrably more consistent.

To be honest, I feel that when you invoke Die Hard, Rambo, Indiana Jones, superheroes and video game "blood spatters" in your defense, you've already moved away from hp=meat into another (cinematic) space.

 

[Hussar]

I've not seen this wave of "HP are meat points, that's the TRUTH" enthusiasts. If anything, I've found it very rare.

Heh. You've not participated in many Damage on a Miss discussions I take it.

To be fair though, it's largely died down in the past few years, mostly because D&D and WotC has basically punted on the issue. Because they don't actually take any side in the discussion, and don't try to explain anything, everyone basically just retreats into their own corners and stop complaining about it.

Which, going back to the train of discussion that started all this, is why reification doesn't work. No matter what WotC tries to say, there will be this very, very vocal push back and it's a no win situation. So, WotC just says that, for example, hobgoblins deal 2d10 (or whatever the number is) with a sword and don't try to explain it. There's just no winning for them if they try.

 

[MuhVerisimilitude]

Same here except for the far-too-fast recovery through simple resting, which we don't use. For us, an overnight (or "long") rest gets back 10% of your total hp, rounded up and a brief breather after a combat in which you took damage gets you back a very small number (usually 1-4) of hit points unless you're close to 0.

This seems unnecessarily punishing to non-casters, since the primary resource burned by a melee martial is HP, while the primary resource burned by a spell caster is magic.