Why rename HP & Saves?

[Storm-Bringer]

Well, I must say that characterization of my web page makes me smile.

Yeah, you have some good stuff there. I will be quite larcenous when it comes to ideas for my own games. Keep up the good work, so I have more to steal.

That said, I find it fairly ridiculous to point to your web page* as some kind of final authourity on the inner workings of Messers. Gygax and Arneson thoughts and designs from 30-odd years ago.

*(or, in fact, any web page other than the enormous Dragonsfoot Q&A forum where Mr Gygax was personally responding to questions, or another where Mr Gygax was posting responses)

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

Yeah, you have some good stuff there. I will be quite larcenous when it comes to ideas for my own games. Keep up the good work, so I have more to steal.

Thank you.

That said, I find it fairly ridiculous to point to your web page* as some kind of final authourity on the inner workings of Messers. Gygax and Arneson thoughts and designs from 30-odd years ago.

Certainly I don't claim any such authority. My only claim (as I say on the site) is the page is about OD&D, as it is played when I run the game.

 

[mmadsen]

That's HP with a different explanation tacked on, and you've already rejected alternate explanations.

I'm not sure how saying, Ideally we'd find a new system that worked just as well for gaming but also kinda, sorta modeled "reality", is just "HP with a different explanation tacked on," and I don't see how I've rejected all alternate explanations.

There are presumably many, many ways to design a combat system, and I don't think many people have aimed for a system that was playable and fun as their first goal, but still sensible.

Anyway, if we stipulate that D&D's current hit point system is playable and fun, and we just want to make it make more sense, then the easy way is to redefine hit points to be fate points, so they are not toughness, they're not lost (only) when you're hit, and they aren't recovered via healing.

Having them work against grapples, bull-rushes, and other maneuvers essentially removes those maneuvers from the game - any time you would want to utilize them, the opponent would just pay some extra HP to avoid the effect, so you'd have essentially the same system as if you just made "bull-rush" a damaging attack in the first place.

The point is that you'd have the choice of when and where to spend your fate points. The hill giant made his grapple check by 12? Which would you prefer, to get grappled or to lose 12 fate points? The hill giant made his to-hit roll by 2? Which would you prefer, to lose 2 fate points or to get hit with his club?

Further, strong but unimportant characters (a random hill giant) would have high toughness and damage stats, but they wouldn't necessarily have high fate points. Conversely, weak but important characters (Frodo) would have low toughness and damage stats, but they would have many, many fate points.

 

[Rex Blunder]

wait... it... sounds like you and I are in agreement, storm-bringer!

You say there has always been a "physical part" to wounds.
I say "nicks and scratches."
Gary says a sword thrust "grazes" someone.

(I'll admit, I'm not crazy about stuff like Cleave, that does damage without a hit roll. But I can live with it if it works well in game play, because I think that since 1e, HP have been a weak rationalization for an unrealistic but fun game mechanic.)

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

Right, which is why I'm surprised anyone's excited about it. Is it better to say "I've taken 50 hit points of damage" than "I have 25 hit points left"? What issue is this solving?

I guess it represents a change of thinking. Even though mechanically these systems are identical, there's a psychological element that rings true with me.

That's not to say that hit points do not right true with me, psychologically. I've never had a problem conceptualizing hit points as an abstract rule representing different narratives.

As I mentioned, I think the problem still remains with Zarathustrian's example, in that it's still 100% abstract. It doesn't matter to me if I'm asking "what are hit points" or "what is damage." The real kicker is that, if I hit a fellow with a dagger, it makes a big difference if that fellow is a 1st level wizard or a 30th level fighter.

 

[Thanin]

Given that the game uses the term "damage" whenever an attack lands, I think the rename should be "Damage Threshold".

Instead of having a HP total that's reduced by damage, the paradigm is that you start with 0 damage and accumulate damage as you're hit. Surges and other healing reduce your damage. Temporary hit points are renamed to temporary threshold increases.

So if you're hit in combat and the DM says "take 5 damage", you don't reduce your total HP by 5. Instead, you literally take 5 damage--you add 5 to your total amount of accumulated damage.

This is more intuitive, and negates the whole "what are hit points?" question. "What is damage threshold?" is self-evident; damage threshold is your threshold for soldiering on despite accumulated damage. Exceed it, and you drop.

The question "what is damage" is answered by the game itself. The game already uses the terms "weapon damage", "radiant damage", "poison damage", and so on. Take fire damage and you're burned. Take psychic damage and your brain is fried. If you take too much damage, you collapse.

When you're sorely wounded, you don't call out "Guys! I'm low on hit points!" Instead, you yell "Guys! I can't take much more damage!"

Makes sense to me!

Nice.

 

[Lacyon]

I'm not sure how saying, Ideally we'd find a new system that worked just as well for gaming but also kinda, sorta modeled "reality", is just "HP with a different explanation tacked on," and I don't see how I've rejected all alternate explanations.

There are presumably many, many ways to design a combat system, and I don't think many people have aimed for a system that was playable and fun as their first goal, but still sensible.

Are you talking about spending X development resources making the combat system playable and fun, and Y development resources making it sensible? If so, you are not spending X+Y resources making it fun and are therefore sacrificing some potential for fun in exchange for "sensibility".

If you are talking instead about a system where you spent X+Y resources building the system to be fun, and tacked on a "sensible" explanation, you are back to the same "problem" that HP have, which is that the "sensible" explanation doesn't satisfy everyone's definition of sensible.

Anyway, if we stipulate that D&D's current hit point system is playable and fun, and we just want to make it make more sense, then the easy way is to redefine hit points to be fate points, so they are not toughness, they're not lost (only) when you're hit, and they aren't recovered via healing.
The point is that you'd have the choice of when and where to spend your fate points. The hill giant made his grapple check by 12? Which would you prefer, to get grappled or to lose 12 fate points? The hill giant made his to-hit roll by 2? Which would you prefer, to lose 2 fate points or to get hit with his club?

These are fundamentally hit points by another name. You may change the recovery mechanics, but those have changed from edition to edition anyway and in 4E everyone recovers their own HP pretty quickly outside a fight anyway. You also need to add in some kind of "toughness" mechanic that represents actual "meat points" (see various Vitality Point systems), or else "get hit by the ogre's club" becomes a non-option (cake or death? I'll have the cake please), making the system overall more complex.

Besides simply being more complex to implement than HP, you're still back to square one in most gameplay. Any sufficiently bad hitfate will be avoided by spending your hitfate points. You're making it so that grapples and such can be avoided, too, but any sufficiently dangerous grapple will be avoided, and any attacker controlled by a player who knows the rules then won't bother grappling unless it's going to cause a bigger fate point loss than the attack he makes instead. This means that in practice, among skilled players, nobody ever gets grappled - it's a non-maneuver in actual combat, only usable when you've run an opponent out of fate points and don't want to kill them outright. That's fine for those who want grappling and the like not to happen in most fights, but for those who like the maneuvers aren't going to have too much fun.

Then you're adding in the idea that instead of people surviving long falls off cliffs (for example), they just don't fall off in the first place, which is actually something I'll consider in my next game without changing the mechanics at all. I can do this just fine on its own because HPs are abstract.

Further, strong but unimportant characters (a random hill giant) would have high toughness and damage stats, but they wouldn't necessarily have high fate points. Conversely, weak but important characters (Frodo) would have low toughness and damage stats, but they would have many, many fate points.

Nothing you can't already do if you're willing to accept HP as abstract. Ogre minions and level 10 hobbithalfling rogues get along in the same game just fine.

 

[mmadsen]

Are you talking about spending X development resources making the combat system playable and fun, and Y development resources making it sensible? If so, you are not spending X+Y resources making it fun and are therefore sacrificing some potential for fun in exchange for "sensibility".

No. As I said before, there does not have to be a trade-off between playability and sensibility.

These are fundamentally hit points by another name.

The reason those fate points "are fundamentally hit points by another name" is because I was specifically trying to provide an example of changing very, very little of a playable system that doesn't make sense to change it into a playable system that does make sense.

You also need to add in some kind of "toughness" mechanic that represents actual "meat points" (see various Vitality Point systems), or else "get hit by the ogre's club" becomes a non-option (cake or death? I'll have the cake please), making the system overall more complex.

You don't need meat points; you just need a toughness mechanic of some kind. It doesn't have to be more complex at all.

For instance, take all the elements of AC that represent dodging, etc. -- all the things that work against a touch attack -- and move them into one AC-like score. Let's call it Defense.

Then move all the elements of AC and hit points that represent armor and toughness, and move them into another AC-like score. Let's call it Toughness.

Roll d20 plus accuracy bonuses vs. Defense to hit. If you hit, roll d20 plus damage bonuses vs. Toughness to disable/kill. This is as simple, or simpler, than tracking hit points.

Fate points can be used against the initial to-hit roll or against the subsequent damage roll. If a lumbering giant swings a tree-trunk at you, you'll probably want to use your fate points dodging his blows -- but if he rolls a natural 20, you may find it better to take the hit and use your fate points to turn it into a flesh wound.

If you're next to a cliff, and you get bull-rushed, you'll likely spend your fate points to stuff the rush. If you're next to a pit, you might accept the rush and spend your fate points to land unharmed -- but in the pit.

 

[Rex Blunder]

This actually seems like a pretty good mechanic. I would try out this RPG.

 

[Storm-Bringer]

Technically, Chainmail didn't use hit points. A hit was a kill. D&D introduced the idea that a hit does 1-6 damage, instead, and that a character accumulates hit points/damage up to the maximum he can take. Thus, Chainmail's hit == kill becomes hit == 1d6 'hit points' of damage, and a normal man can take 1-6 hit points of damage before death.

True, but in the war of escalating hyperbole, each side must reach back a version farther.

Note that the wording, here, suggests the "counting up" approach (not really a new idea), and "hit points" are synonymous with "damage."

Quite correct, in the early days, physical damage was very much a component of hit points. As you note, sometimes the only component. I believe Chainmail wasn't exactly designed for long term play, so it makes more sense in that context. However, 'hit points have always been abstract' is disingenuous, for the reasons you cite, plus no version until 4e has pushed them as more or less exclusively 'abstract'.