D&D 5E what is it about 2nd ed that we miss?

[pemerton]

hit points - a thing only known to the player - correspond to things which are only known to the character in such a way that the player using hit points to make a decision is just facilitating the character making their decision with what information they actually have available.

<snip>

ignoring that hit points are the means by which the player is informed of a variety of things which the character can observe that the player cannot is a thing which DMs that are trying to avoid "meta-gaming" <snippage> seem to do intentionally. Having not asked any such DMs if they intentionally pretend that not only can a character not see the number of hit points they have, but they also have no clue at all about the conditions which hit points represent such as not knowing that they are feeling worn out, bruised, beaten, or so on, I use the word seem because that is as accurate as I can be.

My own view is that hit points straddle a line between serving the sort of representational function that you describe, and being a purely metagame device.

There's no doubt that characters can (in the fiction) feel tired, forlorn, etc, and the way that the player acquires awareness of this is via hit point depletion.

But hit point depletion can also correlate to a loss of resolve, and to ablation of luck and divine protections (Gygax emphasises these things in his AD&D rulebooks). I'm not sure that the character is necessarily aware of these things. In my own life, I know that I'm not always the best judge of when my resolve is failing, or of when I need bucking up.

In my 4e game, when the player of the cleric or paladin asks "Does anyone need healing?" and the players all report on their hit point status, what I envisage happening in the fiction that the character is looking around to see if any of his/her comrades appears to be flagging or looking hard-pressed. S/he then speaks a word of benediction (Healing Word, Word of Vigour), perhaps while gently touching the ally (Lay on Hands), and the character's spirits are raised and s/he is able to go on.

I don't have such a strong mental image for what happens in AD&D or 5e, which seem to use more of a "cure wounds" model and which also require the cleric or paladin to choose how much healing to do (level of slot; or hit points of LoH) - which sort of implies that high level characters (like Conan) have gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, and hence need more powerful magic in order to be roused when their spirits flag.

 

[Maxperson]

Sure, but if it doesn't make enough sense, then you're probably going to stop going with it. And that line is going to be in different places for different people.

It makes more sense than a cleric looking at someone with a 2 hit point scratch out of his 10 hit points and somehow mystically knowing the difference between that and the identical 20 hit point scratch on the guy wit 100 hit points. Identical is identical. There's no rational way that the cleric will be able to tell the difference in game. Better to explain it in one of the ways I suggested earlier, or else just gloss over it like we do with combat.

 

[Maxperson]

What was said is that hit points - a thing only known to the player - correspond to things which are only known to the character in such a way that the player using hit points to make a decision is just facilitating the character making their decision with what information they actually have available.

Identical wounds are identical. A cleric can't at someone with a 2 hit point scratch out of his 10 hit points and somehow mystically know the difference between that and the identical 20 hit point scratch on the guy with 100 hit points. The information the cleric has available is that there are two identical scratches.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Identical wounds are identical. A cleric can't at someone with a 2 hit point scratch out of his 10 hit points and somehow mystically know the difference between that and the identical 20 hit point scratch on the guy with 100 hit points. The information the cleric has available is that there are two identical scratches.

Yes, identical wounds are identical.

But the thing that you use to define wounds as being identical is not actually supported by the rules of the game, and is not the only possible interpretation.

If one were to choose to consider wounds identical or not based on their recovery time or the potency of magic required to alleviate them - a much more sensible option, in my opinion - then players are able to know what their character knows and make informed decisions for the character that match to what in-character knowledge the character possesses, without the absolutely ridiculous idea that a scratched knee is always 20% of a characters total hit points.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

It makes more sense than a cleric looking at someone with a 2 hit point scratch out of his 10 hit points and somehow mystically knowing the difference between that and the identical 20 hit point scratch on the guy wit 100 hit points. Identical is identical. There's no rational way that the cleric will be able to tell the difference in game.

Who says that they're identical? Just as people don't walk around with a big "2/10" sign over their head, they also don't walk around with a "20%" sign.

In fact, you can prove that 2/10 isn't the same as 20/100, because only one of those things can be fixed with a standard healing potion, which is a discrete item that actually exists in the game world and the characters are aware of.

 

[Neonchameleon]

No, I was able to get through the whole book. It was terrible, but I read it anyway, because I needed to be sure that I was right about how terrible it is. It's hard to argue for or against anything if you haven't read it for yourself.
Yeah, I agree. I was as surprised as anyone to find that suggestion in the FATE rulebook. I would have thought that they would make a point of actually sticking to your character, but I was wrong on that account.
D&D does no such thing. D&D is an objective resolution engine. It tells you what happens as a result of a given action. If X, then Y. It is a language for translating events within the world into a mechanical system for the purposes of determining an outcome without bias. What you do with that is up to you and your character.
The actual incentives to the player for accepting a compel, as described on page 14 of the FATE CORE rulebook, are that it creates drama, and you might need that fate point later. This is problematic on both counts.

First of all, the player might want the story to be more dramatic, but any sane character would not. Drama is bad. Real people, when put into dangerous situations, don't want things to be more dramatic. Alcoholics don't want to get drunk and lose control. The alcoholic character knows that getting drunk in the middle of an important mission is a bad thing, and the game is asking the player to make a decision in direct opposition to that knowledge - by exploiting the divide between the player and the character, rather than unifying them.

Second, the use of fate points as a meta-game currency means that getting drunk when you shouldn't is probably the smart move. Unlike in any sort of reasonable world - unlike what would happen in any world that isn't powered by narrative-causality, the way Discworld is - doing something that should be bad is actually good. You accept the compel, and some complication happens now, but then you have the fate point later in order to save the day against the Big Bad. If you give in to your flaw now, you save the day later; if you heroically overcome your flaw and do the right thing now, then you lose later because you don't have the fate point. The best soldier is the worst one, because the best soldier doesn't earn any meta-game points.

If you need incentive for your characters to sometimes do the wrong thing, because of their flaws, then that was solved long ago in GURPS - the character doesn't want to succumb, and the player doesn't want the character to succumb, so you make a Willpower check and you either overcome the negative impulse or you give in. And if you do give in, then something bad is probably going to happen, and you feel bad about it, and your character feels bad about it, and it doesn't secretly mean that now you're more likely to beat the Big Bad later on.

I'm sorry. Your entire psychological model is based on the idea that an alcoholic does not want a drink. And because in GURPS an alcoholic does not want to drink GURPS is a better model. The idea that an alcoholic does not want to drink (as opposed to wants not to drink and knows they ought not to drink while also wanting a drink) is ridiculous. In GURPS the character's motivations are entirely in one direction. In Fate, as in real life, they are in both.

GURPS works on the author stance "This happens because the dice say it does" principle - and to say that's a solution is risible. Fate, like real life has the character and the player tempted.

An alcoholic knows that having a drink might screw them up. And might even screw them up badly. But that is a world away from not wanting a drink.

In Fate if you do get the Fate Point it will screw you up. If a Compel isn't nasty the GM is doing it wrong. But having the Fate Point also gives you something that feels good. Does it feel good enough to make up for the compel? Possibly. In GURPS smart play is never to accept temptation. In Fate smart players are genuinelty tempted to portray their character's flaws.

 

[Maxperson]

Yes, identical wounds are identical.

But the thing that you use to define wounds as being identical is not actually supported by the rules of the game, and is not the only possible interpretation.

If one were to choose to consider wounds identical or not based on their recovery time or the potency of magic required to alleviate them - a much more sensible option, in my opinion - then players are able to know what their character knows and make informed decisions for the character that match to what in-character knowledge the character possesses, without the absolutely ridiculous idea that a scratched knee is always 20% of a characters total hit points.

Wounds aren't even wounds in 5e until you get to 50% hit points Prior to that there is usually ZERO indication that anything is amiss at all.

When your current hit point total is half or more of your hit point maximum, you typically show no signs of injury.

How do you propose the PC can figure it out with no signs of injury?

 

[Maxperson]

Who says that they're identical? Just as people don't walk around with a big "2/10" sign over their head, they also don't walk around with a "20%" sign.

They do have a sign..........sort of, but that sign is 51%+ Until then, there's no indication of injury at all the majority of the time. After that, there's no reason to describe things any differently just because someone has more hit points............unless you are playing with injuries as 100% meat. THEN it would be different.

In fact, you can prove that 2/10 isn't the same as 20/100, because only one of those things can be fixed with a standard healing potion, which is a discrete item that actually exists in the game world and the characters are aware of.

So you do play with hit points as 100% meat, because that's the only way that the injuries would appear to be different, or at least one worse than the other.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Wounds aren't even wounds in 5e until you get to 50% hit points Prior to that there is usually ZERO indication that anything is amiss at all.

That is false. Lost hit points need not be representative of physical damage to the character's flesh in order to be representative of something that can be observed by the character.

How do you propose the PC can figure it out with no signs of injury?

No signs of injury does not mean no signs of hp loss representing the other parts of what HP represent. So I propose the PC can figure it out by it being inherently figure-out-able to the character - because if the character couldn't see the in-character things which lost hp mean (including, but not limited to actual physical wounds), then the game would recommend that the DM hides HP totals of characters from their players just like it recommends hiding any other detail the player isn't supposed to be able to base their decision making on.

 

[Maxperson]

That is false. Lost hit points need not be representative of physical damage to the character's flesh in order to be representative of something that can be observed by the character.

How do you observe the loss of luck, or other vague thing like skill or will of the gods?

No signs of injury does not mean no signs of hp loss representing the other parts of what HP represent. So I propose the PC can figure it out by it being inherently figure-out-able to the character - because if the character couldn't see the in-character things which lost hp mean (including, but not limited to actual physical wounds), then the game would recommend that the DM hides HP totals of characters from their players just like it recommends hiding any other detail the player isn't supposed to be able to base their decision making on.

So give an example of how a PC knows that at another PC just lost 10 luck points, 5 skill points and 5 points of will of the gods with that 20 points of damage?