Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Why Not Just Call Them Stamina Points?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="KarinsDad" data-source="post: 4102919" data-attributes="member: 2011"><p>This is what I love about arguments like this. People never actually examine the other person's arguments.</p><p></p><p>My argument is not that hit points are meat points. It's that they are a combination of meat points and an abstraction of meat points as per what is writtten in 3E:</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Not one thing. Two things. As per what is written.</p><p></p><p>The "totally abstract" argument takes into account the second of these and mostly ignores or allows one specific interpreation of the first (i.e. try to make it totally about will power or some such and not damage at all). Why?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>The abstract argument falls apart for this rule. If, like in 4E, hit points are more of a stamina or defensive or luck or skill, how does this rule work with that interpretation?</p><p></p><p>It only works if hit points actually represent damage to a significant degree. Not 100%. But both as a way to turn serious damage into lesser damage, and also as actual damage.</p><p></p><p>My argument is that if a PC is 75% damaged, then he is not "tired and exhausted", he's hurt. It might be a lot of little injuries, but he's hurt.</p><p></p><p>Taking 75% of a PC's damage in round one with a single attack does not suddenly make him tired and exhausted. It makes him seriously damaged. And, the vast majority of players play that PC at that point as if he were seriously damaged, not as if he were tired and exhausted or "nearly out of luck".</p><p></p><p>Just because the system does not have rules in it for having penalities for being wounded does not mean that a PC is not wounded. A PC wounded 75% of his hit points is damaged the same if he is 20th level or 1st level. In either case, he's about to kick the bucket and a single attack (at his appropriate level) might kill him. Yes, hit points are an abstraction of damage. They represent damage as a percentage, not one for one. But, unlike in 4E where it is closer to representing stamina, in 3E it represents damage. In 4E, one wakes up fresh the next morning with zero damage, regardless of how "wounded" he was. That totally changes the model of hit points from 3E to 4E from an abstract representation of damage to an abstract representation of fatigue (or will or some such).</p><p></p><p></p><p>The entire 3E game system, from combat to spells, discusses lethal damage and wounds with regard to hit points. It never discusses luck, or skill, or defense with regard to hit points outside of the single phrase that it allows a character to turn a serious blow into a less serious one (and note: the phrase "less serious" does not mean "not serious", a wound can be less serious and still be serious).</p><p></p><p>John's argument is a philosophical one which does not match what is written in the system, nor as how many players have historically viewed the system. He and others are basing that philosophy off of half of the definition of hit points, not the entire definition. He is using the half that is used to explain why high level PCs have many times more hit points than low level PCs and ignoring the other half.</p><p></p><p>If a new player starts in your game system, you do not state that hit points do not really represent damage to the player. You might confuse the heck out of some new players that way. Instead, you tell him that when he takes damage, he subtracts it from his hit points.</p><p></p><p>And, that's the bottom line. Arm chair philosophers can try to find ways to indicate that hit points do not represent damage, but the game system has many instances of words like lethal, damage, hits, wounds, etc. with respect to hit points or their recovery.</p><p></p><p></p><p>The change for 4E is that hit points are not necessarily damage at all unless a PC dies. Even going unconscious, it can be considered to not be damage.</p><p></p><p>But historically, hit points have always been about damage. Always. Even as an abstraction, they have been an abstraction of damage, not stamina (or will or luck or skill or some such).</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="KarinsDad, post: 4102919, member: 2011"] This is what I love about arguments like this. People never actually examine the other person's arguments. My argument is not that hit points are meat points. It's that they are a combination of meat points and an abstraction of meat points as per what is writtten in 3E: Not one thing. Two things. As per what is written. The "totally abstract" argument takes into account the second of these and mostly ignores or allows one specific interpreation of the first (i.e. try to make it totally about will power or some such and not damage at all). Why? The abstract argument falls apart for this rule. If, like in 4E, hit points are more of a stamina or defensive or luck or skill, how does this rule work with that interpretation? It only works if hit points actually represent damage to a significant degree. Not 100%. But both as a way to turn serious damage into lesser damage, and also as actual damage. My argument is that if a PC is 75% damaged, then he is not "tired and exhausted", he's hurt. It might be a lot of little injuries, but he's hurt. Taking 75% of a PC's damage in round one with a single attack does not suddenly make him tired and exhausted. It makes him seriously damaged. And, the vast majority of players play that PC at that point as if he were seriously damaged, not as if he were tired and exhausted or "nearly out of luck". Just because the system does not have rules in it for having penalities for being wounded does not mean that a PC is not wounded. A PC wounded 75% of his hit points is damaged the same if he is 20th level or 1st level. In either case, he's about to kick the bucket and a single attack (at his appropriate level) might kill him. Yes, hit points are an abstraction of damage. They represent damage as a percentage, not one for one. But, unlike in 4E where it is closer to representing stamina, in 3E it represents damage. In 4E, one wakes up fresh the next morning with zero damage, regardless of how "wounded" he was. That totally changes the model of hit points from 3E to 4E from an abstract representation of damage to an abstract representation of fatigue (or will or some such). The entire 3E game system, from combat to spells, discusses lethal damage and wounds with regard to hit points. It never discusses luck, or skill, or defense with regard to hit points outside of the single phrase that it allows a character to turn a serious blow into a less serious one (and note: the phrase "less serious" does not mean "not serious", a wound can be less serious and still be serious). John's argument is a philosophical one which does not match what is written in the system, nor as how many players have historically viewed the system. He and others are basing that philosophy off of half of the definition of hit points, not the entire definition. He is using the half that is used to explain why high level PCs have many times more hit points than low level PCs and ignoring the other half. If a new player starts in your game system, you do not state that hit points do not really represent damage to the player. You might confuse the heck out of some new players that way. Instead, you tell him that when he takes damage, he subtracts it from his hit points. And, that's the bottom line. Arm chair philosophers can try to find ways to indicate that hit points do not represent damage, but the game system has many instances of words like lethal, damage, hits, wounds, etc. with respect to hit points or their recovery. The change for 4E is that hit points are not necessarily damage at all unless a PC dies. Even going unconscious, it can be considered to not be damage. But historically, hit points have always been about damage. Always. Even as an abstraction, they have been an abstraction of damage, not stamina (or will or luck or skill or some such). [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Why Not Just Call Them Stamina Points?
Top