Most Ridiculous Rules in RPGS

[Thrudd]

Well how does magical healing work in this context?

How does it help your ability to "dodge" the rabbit, that after narrowly escaping the dragon flame, and the large demon arrow, a cleric cast a heal on you? I mean you were never really hurt by the dragon flames, nor the demon arrow, at least not badly hurt, so a cure light wound should be sufficient right?

If hit points represented your ability to avoid attacks, healing shouldn't work (or at least you'll need a complete re-fluff of the healing spells).

Also evasion becomes a bit strange as it exactly represent your ability to duck out of the way of stuff like large flames etc, but in your description hit point represent the same...

It is also weird that the character should know how good they are at avoiding thing (hit points). Every layer will be carefull when at low hit points, and the CHARACTER will likely drink a healing potion (or cure x wound etc) or ask the cleric to heal them. Talk about weird: i dodged the dragon and the demon-arrow, but lo, there is a rabbit! I better drink a healing potion....

It doesn't really work, now does it.

Yes, it doesn't make sense. Healing magic is a purely strategic game construct, just like HP. D&D started as a very abstract game which over the years accumulated details meant to more precisely model things, but since they never changed the super abstract foundation it ends up with many confused and conflicting things.

HP started as a way of determining how many troops in a unit get killed after a period of combat with another unit of troops. The game only models 2 states, alive and dead. Healing magic may as well be seen as divine/magical protection rather than literal healing, especially in original and basic D&D, where 0 hp means dead: no negative hp, no bleeding out/unconscious, no death saves. When someone gets to zero, it's too late for cure spells. Adding the unconscious-but not dead yet status was one of those steps which did not make sense for the level of abstraction the game assumes. Cure only works while someone is alive, so it may be healing cuts and bruises, or restoring divine favor/luck/protection, or reinvigorating general fatigue. Abstract.

[CrazyPenguin]

Back to ridiculous rules, there's a charm in Exalted 3e that essentially allows you to write somebody hate mail so mean that their soul falls off. The book actually uses the word "their soul falls off".

[Max_Killjoy]

Well how does magical healing work in this context?

How does it help your ability to "dodge" the rabbit, that after narrowly escaping the dragon flame, and the large demon arrow, a cleric cast a heal on you? I mean you were never really hurt by the dragon flames, nor the demon arrow, at least not badly hurt, so a cure light wound should be sufficient right?

If hit points represented your ability to avoid attacks, healing shouldn't work (or at least you'll need a complete re-fluff of the healing spells).

Also evasion becomes a bit strange as it exactly represent your ability to duck out of the way of stuff like large flames etc, but in your description hit point represent the same...

It is also weird that the character should know how good they are at avoiding thing (hit points). Every layer will be carefull when at low hit points, and the CHARACTER will likely drink a healing potion (or cure x wound etc) or ask the cleric to heal them. Talk about weird: i dodged the dragon and the demon-arrow, but lo, there is a rabbit! I better drink a healing potion....

It doesn't really work, now does it.


Yeah, this is where HP systems break down for me.

I suppose it's possible that the spell heals whatever you need of meat, stamina, luck, etc. It's just kinda hard for me personally to groc at that point.


In D&D...


Mechanically, armor looks like it represents the wearer being more able to avoid hits, but we're told it models the armor making it harder for attackers to get in a damaging hit...

Mechanically, hit points look like they represent the character gaining more and more ability to absorb hits, but we're told they model the character being some muddled combination of tougher, harder to hit, and luckier...

Mechanically, spellcasting appears to involve forgetting your carefully studied spells, every time you use them, but we're told that it's something else... (even though the guy who came up with the system says that it's exactly what it looks like (http://www.dyingearth.com/files/GARY%20GYGAX%20JACK%20VANCE.pdf)).


It's almost like nothing in the system maps what it mechanically appears to be mapping...

[Max_Killjoy]

Back to ridiculous rules, there's a charm in Exalted 3e that essentially allows you to write somebody hate mail so mean that their soul falls off. The book actually uses the word "their soul falls off".

It's Exalted, what did you expect?

[Segev]

Which just continues to show how abstracted and disconnected D&D-style hit points are.Abstracted, yes. Disconnected, no.

"Forsooth! I have just barely dodged that fatal blow! See how it has nicked my statuesque cheekbone rather than pierced my noble eye socket!"

"Pity Sir Peasantington - who, now that I look at him, seems to be a level 1 commoner somebody dressed up in a knight's finery - lacks your skill and was pierced through the eye socket by an identical attack."


Well how does magical healing work in this context?

How does it help your ability to "dodge" the rabbit, that after narrowly escaping the dragon flame, and the large demon arrow, a cleric cast a heal on you? I mean you were never really hurt by the dragon flames, nor the demon arrow, at least not badly hurt, so a cure light wound should be sufficient right?

If hit points represented your ability to avoid attacks, healing shouldn't work (or at least you'll need a complete re-fluff of the healing spells). the magical healing that restores Sir Peasantington's nigh-fatal injury to the gut (7 hp damage on his 3 hp person put him thoroughly in negatives!) restores Charming Fighterlad's luck and stamina (and closes that unsightly gash on his cheekbone).

The energy and luck and stamina that is expended in just barely escaping dozens of otherwise-fatal wounds is something which also gets restored. Charming just looks more drained after a protracted fight, even if he's bruised and scraped rather than bleeding from his sucking chest wounds, than does Sir Peasantington.

By the time Michael Phelps is barely able to swim another 2 laps before he needs a break, he's far, far more exhausted than, say, John Goodman at the same number of laps left in him. It also takes more magical energy to restore that stamina. And if it's luck, it takes more magical energy to restore the greater amount of luck.

That set of bruises and scorch marks on Charming represent a lot more expended luck, divine grace, and stamina than they would on Sir Peasantington.


Also evasion becomes a bit strange as it exactly represent your ability to duck out of the way of stuff like large flames etc, but in your description hit point represent the same...Making your save means you consumed less of a finite pool of heroic luck and personal stamina. Evasion means you consumed none at all; you can keep that up all day long. Hit point loss represents a genuine loss of your finite, though oft intangible, resources. You can only have that bullet bounce off the flask you keep in your shirt pocket so many times. You can only manage to drop just right to avoid the fireball so often. ...unless you've got Evasion, in which case (provided you keep making that save) you can do it all day long.


It is also weird that the character should know how good they are at avoiding thing (hit points). Every layer will be carefull when at low hit points, and the CHARACTER will likely drink a healing potion (or cure x wound etc) or ask the cleric to heal them. Talk about weird: i dodged the dragon and the demon-arrow, but lo, there is a rabbit! I better drink a healing potion...."Man, after that dragon's swipe and that demon-arrow that almost hit my heart, I'm feeling awfully shaken up and worn down. Better drink this potion that rejuvenates me before I take on this rabbit; drained as I feel now, it might take me out! And that'd be SAD."



It doesn't really work, now does it.Sure it does. See above.

[InvisibleBison]

the magical healing that restores Sir Peasantington's nigh-fatal injury to the gut (7 hp damage on his 3 hp person put him thoroughly in negatives!) restores Charming Fighterlad's luck and stamina (and closes that unsightly gash on his cheekbone).

The energy and luck and stamina that is expended in just barely escaping dozens of otherwise-fatal wounds is something which also gets restored. Charming just looks more drained after a protracted fight, even if he's bruised and scraped rather than bleeding from his sucking chest wounds, than does Sir Peasantington.

By the time Michael Phelps is barely able to swim another 2 laps before he needs a break, he's far, far more exhausted than, say, John Goodman at the same number of laps left in him. It also takes more magical energy to restore that stamina. And if it's luck, it takes more magical energy to restore the greater amount of luck.

That set of bruises and scorch marks on Charming represent a lot more expended luck, divine grace, and stamina than they would on Sir Peasantington.

So how does Charming's energy and luck and stamina allow him to survive being on fire for longer than Sir Peasantington?

[Max_Killjoy]

So how does Charming's energy and luck and stamina allow him to survive being on fire for longer than Sir Peasantington?

And how does a "heal" spell restore his luck, etc?

[LudicSavant]

I don't have as much trouble with the idea that a character is doing something defensive to make themselves take less damage from an attack (though I do have trouble with that in a few contexts where it is less obvious how it could be a sufficiently different wound based on one's behavior, such as in the case of, say, falling 1000 feet)... so much as I have trouble matching this idea up with them being more difficult to heal to full health.

Like, apparently the idea is that I'm supposed to be using my skill to turn a deadly blow into a glancing one... but then the papercut becomes more difficult to heal than an impaled commoner? The idea of 'restoring luck' just seems like a rather unsatisfactory explanation to me.

[Keltest]

So how does Charming's energy and luck and stamina allow him to survive being on fire for longer than Sir Peasantington?

Skill. He's enough of a veteran to have an understanding of how fire does its damage and can do things to minimize its impact on him without interrupting the flow of combat.

[InvisibleBison]

Skill. He's enough of a veteran to have an understanding of how fire does its damage and can do things to minimize its impact on him without interrupting the flow of combat.

Firstly, what possible actions could one take to minimize the impact, as you put it, of being on fire? I'm talking about being completely immolated, like this guy (http://edmontontoday.blogspot.com/2012/03/first-look-when-tibetan-set-himself-on.html), which in D&D terms is 1d6 damage per round.

Secondly, "skill" is not a subset of "energy and luck and stamina". If HP is supposed to represent the latter, the former cannot be an explanation of how one survives being on fire.

Thirdly, if we accept that HP represents skill at mitigating the effects of fire, what if both Charming and Sir Peasantington were paralyzed and then set on fire? Even though neither is able to act, thus eliminating Charming's superior fire-surviving skills, Charming would survive longer because he has more HP.

[LudicSavant]

Skill. He's enough of a veteran to have an understanding of how fire does its damage and can do things to minimize its impact on him without interrupting the flow of combat.

What on earth are you talking about? No amount of skill or luck is going to allow a paralyzed, fully immolated man to mitigate the damage.

Other examples: Paralyzed man thrown into a vat of acid and left to soak. Paralyzed man dropped from 1000 feet. These are clear cases of actual bodily durability, no amount of luck or skill can mitigate this.

[Arbane]

So, D&D Hitpoints gets the Lifetime Achievement Award in the field of 'Ridiculous Rules', now we can move on to other silly rules.

OK? Please?

[Segev]

So how does Charming's energy and luck and stamina allow him to survive being on fire for longer than Sir Peasantington?Energy, luck, and stamina let him survive being on fire longer because he's got the energy to persevere despite the pain, the luck to be actually burning less or require more fire to really get the same amount of physical harm, and stamina to forge ahead anyway. It's actually something that happens in a number of myths: a heroic man will keep fighting despite being ON FIRE to the point that lesser men would have charred to a crisp. It adequately models the kind of story the game is designed to facilitate.


And how does a "heal" spell restore his luck, etc?Same way it restores flesh and blood: magic. I mean, really, what other answer do you expect? How does resting restore luck etc.? By virtue of it giving him more space to be "lucky." If divine magic can't give a certain amount of divine fortune to avoid harm, I don't know what can.


I don't have as much trouble with the idea that a character is doing something defensive to make themselves take less damage from an attack (though I do have trouble with that in a few contexts where it is less obvious how it could be a sufficiently different wound based on one's behavior, such as in the case of, say, falling 1000 feet)... so much as I have trouble matching this idea up with them being more difficult to heal to full health.Given that the high-hp guy isn't necessarily that much more physically resilient than the low-hp guy (not saying that he isn't tougher, but he's not "bend an I-beam over his forearm" tough), the healing spell is having to restore the "energy, luck, and stamina" that goes into those hp. There's a deeper well of capacity to avoid harm that needs filling. Somebody worn down by exhaustion will "look" it, especially to those who can do healing checks or use health-monitoring spells. He won't feel 100% on his game. So even if the open lacerations and deep punctures are gone, the stiffness, soreness, and just plain worn-out slowness will be there for the additional magics to heal away.


Like, apparently the idea is that I'm supposed to be using my skill to turn a deadly blow into a glancing one... but then the papercut becomes more difficult to heal than an impaled commoner? The idea of 'restoring luck' just seems like a rather unsatisfactory explanation to me.I can't help that it's less satisfactory, but no, the papercut's no harder to heal. The papercut heals just fine. But the sense of unease from the close call doesn't go away. The jitter to your nerves, that sense that you're just a bit more tired, a bit more slow, a bit less LUCKY than you might need to be to avoid that blow in the future is present. Maybe you can still turn another dozen blows like that into glancing bruises and "papercuts." But if you get healed properly, you can turn that baker's dozen you would have without ever having taken the glancing blow in the first place.

[RazorChain]

Skill. He's enough of a veteran to have an understanding of how fire does its damage and can do things to minimize its impact on him without interrupting the flow of combat.

I wanna see how skill makes one minimize the impact of something close to phosphorus grenade while fighting at the same time, or uses skill to minimize being doused in acid.

Of course luck, stamina and skill saves him from that pitfall and spikes at the bottom and that axe pendulum was only a minor gash or did it take a chunk of his luck.

Did he get his armor bonus on top of his reflex save? No someone mentioned that armor makes you harder to hurt that is why you get bonus to AC should not the same apply to traps? Or damage spells?

If a giant throws a boulder at you.....how did that armor help? If I stuff one of my puppies in a tin can I don't seem to have anymore trouble crushing him with a rock than the other puppies I crushed with a rock without wearing a tin can?

[Max_Killjoy]

Same way it restores flesh and blood: magic. I mean, really, what other answer do you expect? How does resting restore luck etc.? By virtue of it giving him more space to be "lucky." If divine magic can't give a certain amount of divine fortune to avoid harm, I don't know what can.


Then it would be a "luck spell", not a "healing spell".

[Segev]

I wanna see how skill makes one minimize the impact of something close to phosphorus grenade while fighting at the same time, or uses skill to minimize being doused in acid.His armor/cloak/that piece of terrain takes the brunt of it as he moves to minimize impact or is just luckily in a less-filled area of the splash.


Of course luck, stamina and skill saves him from that pitfall and spikes at the bottom and that axe pendulum was only a minor gash or did it take a chunk of his luck.Why not? He manages to place his shield to spread his impact across multiple spikes, so only the twist and imbalance at the end caused him to get pierced rather than landing full-force on them. He twisted to the side and the axe pendulum cut into his shoulder rather than taking him in the back of the head. Whether it's luck or deliberate skill, he managed not to be right where the worst of the damage would be done.


Did he get his armor bonus on top of his reflex save? No someone mentioned that armor makes you harder to hurt that is why you get bonus to AC should not the same apply to traps? Or damage spells?Some traps target AC. Others target saves. Armor is designed to work consistently against specific things. But that doesn't mean you can't repurpose it (deliberately or by luck) if you're wearing it.

Now, you might complain, "But Bob the Naked Barbarian, who refuses to wear any clothing at all, has more hp than Fred the Armored Fighter, who has a suit of full plate! Why is Bob less hurt by that acid splash or spiked pit trap than Fred?"

That's a good question! But the abstracted nature of hp means that it could be any number of reasons. Fred just isn't as good at using his armor to stop the acid from reaching his skin as Bob is at flat-out dodging. Or maybe Bob, being a barbarian accustomed to nakedness, literally has tougher and more resilient flesh, even to an extraordinary degree (remember, we're talking potentially mythic heroes, here). Bob lands on the spikes and grips them with his toes and hands, only scraping himself and getting lightly pock-marked by others rather than impaling himself. Fred's heavy armor protects him, but is still pierced through weaker joins.

But at the same time, Bob can take fewer overall glancing blows and near-misses than Fred, simply because Fred's higher AC means that a lot of those glancing blows deflect entirely off his armor.


If a giant throws a boulder at you.....how did that armor help? If I stuff one of my puppies in a tin can I don't seem to have anymore trouble crushing him with a rock than the other puppies I crushed with a rock without wearing a tin can?Well, first off, your poor puppy in a tin can is being coup de graced; you kind of rendered him helpless before you attacked him with that rock.

I daresay, as well, that if you were to throw the rock at the puppy in a tin can, the can will tend to deflect more than the puppy alone would, reducing overall damage done to the puppy unless the rock was so overwhelming as to crush both trivially.

And a puppy who actually was defending himself would be trying to avoid that rock. The armor allows him to be less successful in physically not being where the rock is because he can get clipped by it without taking damage. He only has to get to where it hits at the right angle to bounce him out of its way rather than really bruising him, and it is far less likely to crush bones than simply exert a somewhat more elastic impact (with the padding under his armor cushioning and spreading the blow to minimize damage further).

Essentially, the armor takes what hp would have had to expend of his luck and makes it repeatable ad infinitum, to the extent that the blows no longer exceed his AC.


Think of AC (and reflex for no damage) as repeatable dodging, and hp as the last-ditch luck or skill to dodge when you "should" have been hit.

[Segev]

Then it would be a "luck spell", not a "healing spell".

If your luck/skill/importance-to-the-plot is all wrapped up in your life force, then no, it's still a healing spell.

Luck spells add to your AC or saves, typically. They even call it a "luck bonus" to those stats. They're part of the repeatable dodging.

That's why hp isn't JUST "luck." It's a combination of exhaustible luck, energy and skill to survive what could have been a fatal blow. Plus a certain amount of destructible physical toughness. But all of that can be wrapped up in "life force" or "vitality." And healing spells restore that. By closing wounds, replenishing reserves of stamina, and improving your je ne se qua that keeps you having that arrow slice under your left arm pit rather than through your heart.

[Max_Killjoy]

If your luck/skill/importance-to-the-plot is all wrapped up in your life force, then no, it's still a healing spell.

Luck spells add to your AC or saves, typically. They even call it a "luck bonus" to those stats. They're part of the repeatable dodging.

That's why hp isn't JUST "luck." It's a combination of exhaustible luck, energy and skill to survive what could have been a fatal blow. Plus a certain amount of destructible physical toughness. But all of that can be wrapped up in "life force" or "vitality." And healing spells restore that. By closing wounds, replenishing reserves of stamina, and improving your je ne se qua that keeps you having that arrow slice under your left arm pit rather than through your heart.

Honestly, the more this explanation is used to try to justify D&D-style escalating hit points, the more it becomes clear just how awful a game mechanic it is. Especially in the broader context of the overlapping mechanics that are also muddled and disconnected.

As noted in a previous post, in D&D...

Mechanically, armor looks like it represents the wearer being more able to avoid hits, but we're told it models the armor making it harder for attackers to get in a damaging hit...

Mechanically, hit points look like they represent the character gaining more and more ability to absorb hits, but we're told they model the character being some muddled combination of tougher, harder to hit, and luckier...

And then we have saving throws, which also look like they model willpower, reflexes, toughness, and maybe some luck? (And don't forget that what a saving throw does depends entirely and arbitrarily on what's being "saved" against.)


The entire thing is a giant overlapping, disconnected, this-and-that, abstracted muddle of mechanics that make even LESS sense when taken as a whole than they do individually.

[Quertus]

Mechanically, armor looks like it represents the wearer being more able to avoid hits, but we're told it models the armor making it harder for attackers to get in a damaging hit...

Armor has never looked like the ability to avoid (dodge) hits. Even older editions had the concept of touch AC (although they obfuscated it behind "AC 10" and "bonuses").

So... how would you model epic / movie heroes, who can take far more punishment than would kill your average person, laugh it off, and keep going? What would your ideal rules to model this look like?

[Segev]

Honestly, the more this explanation is used to try to justify D&D-style escalating hit points, the more it becomes clear just how awful a game mechanic it is. Especially in the broader context of the overlapping mechanics that are also muddled and disconnected. Nonsense. How "realistic" it seems to you has literally nothing to do with how good it is as a game mechanic.


As noted in a previous post, in D&D...

Mechanically, armor looks like it represents the wearer being more able to avoid hits, but we're told it models the armor making it harder for attackers to get in a damaging hit...

Mechanically, hit points look like they represent the character gaining more and more ability to absorb hits, but we're told they model the character being some muddled combination of tougher, harder to hit, and luckier... And? One is an exhaustible resource. The other is not. Armor is going to keep protecting you, turning hits into nothing to worry about, as long as you're wearing it. Hit points are your ever-reducing ability to turn hits from which your armor fails to protect you into non-debilitating injuries. Whether that ability stems from luck, extra oomph to your dodge, or sheer toughness, each time your armor fails to protect you sufficiently, you have that ability taxed, strained, and reduced. Whether because you can only be lucky so many times, or you are getting tired, or your body is only able to handle so much before it buckles, your resilience is finite.


And then we have saving throws, which also look like they model willpower, reflexes, toughness, and maybe some luck? (And don't forget that what a saving throw does depends entirely and arbitrarily on what's being "saved" against.)...and?

The "arbitrary" nature of what's being saved against is a stupid complaint as a blanket one. Sure, you could complain if a poison offered a reflex save (after it's been injected), but they don't. They almost invariably offer a fortitude save, which lines up the fluff quite nicely to the mechanics.

Saves are not a diminishing resource. They're how good/tough/able you are to simply shake off or avoid the threats they protect you from, and to keep doing it repeatably.

I get the impression you're fishing for excuses to call it a bad mechanic because you don't like it, and don't want to have to agree that others can find it perfectly valid and reasonable without being able to look down your nose at them for not being as smart as you are for realizing how bad it is.


The entire thing is a giant overlapping, disconnected, this-and-that, abstracted muddle of mechanics that make even LESS sense when taken as a whole than they do individually.
Abstracted, not disconnected. The connections are there. They're intuitively obvious (well, except for the AC-being-not-getting-hit thing, which is a little odd before it's explained, since the intuition is that armor reduces damage).

"Max_Killjoy is unsatisfied with the modeling of these things" does not equate to "it's a mess and a bad mechanic."

[Max_Killjoy]

Armor has never looked like the ability to avoid (dodge) hits. Even older editions had the concept of touch AC (although they obfuscated it behind "AC 10" and "bonuses").


Armor and the dexterity bonus have shared the same mechanical effect against the to-hit roll of attacker, at least as far back as the boxed sets. If the attacker doesn't make their roll against the combined/conflated ARMOR CLASS, then no damage is even rolled.

That's either "armor makes you harder to hit" or a terrible abstraction.




So... how would you model epic / movie heroes, who can take far more punishment than would kill your average person, laugh it off, and keep going? What would your ideal rules to model this look like?


First, I highly doubt that was ever the intent with D&D, which is more a case of taking in abstractions and presumptions from wargaming.

Second... I wouldn't. I have zero interest in modelling the sins of Hollywood.

[Segev]

First, I highly doubt that was ever the intent with D&D, which is more a case of taking in abstractions and presumptions from wargaming.

Second... I wouldn't. I have zero interest in modelling the sins of Hollywood.

So... "Max_Killjoy doesn't like this kind of story, so any mechanics modeling it are not just worthless, but terrible."

Gotcha.

[Max_Killjoy]

Nonsense. How "realistic" it seems to you has literally nothing to do with how good it is as a game mechanic.


I don't see the word "realistic" in the post you just quoted. Doth you protest too much?




And? One is an exhaustible resource. The other is not.


So what?

"One is a diminishing resource, the other is not" makes no difference at all. The question is what the "resource pool" models, and whether it does it consistently and coherently and with verisimilitude -- as with any other mechanic.

Having two rules mechanisms that each model kinda-this, and kinda-that, and kinda-another-thing, that overlap on one of those kinda-things, isn't excused by the use of two different mechanisms.




Armor is going to keep protecting you, turning hits into nothing to worry about, as long as you're wearing it. Hit points are your ever-reducing ability to turn hits from which your armor fails to protect you into non-debilitating injuries. Whether that ability stems from luck, extra oomph to your dodge, or sheer toughness, each time your armor fails to protect you sufficiently, you have that ability taxed, strained, and reduced. Whether because you can only be lucky so many times, or you are getting tired, or your body is only able to handle so much before it buckles, your resilience is finite.


None of which is a refutation of anything I just posted, and none of which changes the fact that these are multiple mechanics that are being retroactively explained with muddled, overlapping justifications.

Does AC represent avoiding hits, or do Hit Points represent avoiding hits, or do Reflex Saves represent avoiding hits? Which is it? Evidently, in D&D, it's kinda all three sorta, but each one also includes other things.




...and?

The "arbitrary" nature of what's being saved against is a stupid complaint as a blanket one. Sure, you could complain if a poison offered a reflex save (after it's been injected), but they don't. They almost invariably offer a fortitude save, which lines up the fluff quite nicely to the mechanics.

Saves are not a diminishing resource. They're how good/tough/able you are to simply shake off or avoid the threats they protect you from, and to keep doing it repeatably.


Against one poison attack, it's reflex to avoid the attack, against another poison attack, it's fortitude to withstand the poison, against something else it works yet a different way, all on a case by case by case basis.




I get the impression you're fishing for excuses to call it a bad mechanic because you don't like it, and don't want to have to agree that others can find it perfectly valid and reasonable without being able to look down your nose at them for not being as smart as you are for realizing how bad it is.


That's ironic, given that defenders of the D&D mechanics have been fishing for excuses for the system for decades, coming up with ways to avoid confronting the inherent flaws while looking down their nose at critics for "just not getting it."




Abstracted, not disconnected. The connections are there. They're intuitively obvious (well, except for the AC-being-not-getting-hit thing, which is a little odd before it's explained, since the intuition is that armor reduces damage).


There's absolutely nothing intuitive about any of the mechanics being discussed here -- they make LESS sense the more one tries to connect them to what's being modeled/mapped.

Again... does AC represent avoiding hits, or do Hit Points represent avoiding hits, or do Reflex Saves represent avoiding hits? Which is it?




"Max_Killjoy is unsatisfied with the modeling of these things" does not equate to "it's a mess and a bad mechanic."


I see the ad hom has now started. I guess that tells us where we are in the "discussion".



So... "Max_Killjoy doesn't like this kind of story, so any mechanics modeling it are not just worthless, but terrible."

Gotcha.

Not really, no, but if that makes it easier to wave off the criticisms, go ahead -- you're joining in a fine tradition going back decades, one that critics of D&D have run into since at least when I started gaming in the mid 80s.

[Keltest]

Armor and the dexterity bonus have shared the same mechanical effect against the to-hit roll of attacker, at least as far back as the boxed sets. If the attacker doesn't make their roll against the combined/conflated ARMOR CLASS, then no damage is even rolled.

That's either "armor makes you harder to hit" or a terrible abstraction.

The difference to a target between "The target was not damage because the blade did not penetrate their armor" and "the target was not damaged because the blade did not connect with the target at all" is negligible. If you must, think of it as armor making you harder to hurt, not hit.

[Segev]

I don't see the word "realistic" in the post you just quoted. Doth you protest too much? Hardly. You're the one who's objecting to it on grounds based on how it doesn't make sense. You may not say the word "realistic," but trying to hide behind not using the word is like saying, "I hear that everyone who's seen your face has vomited in revulsion. But I never said the word 'ugly,' so maybe you're protesting too much."


None of which is a refutation of anything I just posted, and none of which changes the fact that these are multiple mechanics that are being retroactively explained with muddled, overlapping justifications. None of which actually makes them bad game mechanics. Nor even non-sensical (which, despite your protests to the contrary, are the core of a number of your arguments; I invite you to restate your arguments which do not rest at their core on this presumption, in which case I will address them more directly as I have clearly misunderstood your position).


Does AC represent avoiding hits, or do Hit Points represent avoiding hits, or do Reflex Saves represent avoiding hits? Which is it? Evidently, in D&D, it's kinda all three sorta, but each one also includes other things. Yep. I don't see why this is a problem. They represent avoiding hits in different ways, or from different sources.

AC represents a combination of your dodging ability in a weapon-based fight and your armor's ability to completely slough off hits that don't nail you sufficiently accurately to avoid deflection. Barring a mechanic for physical activity exhausting you over time, it's stuff you can keep up and keep doing "all day" to avoid being hurt.

Hit points represent - to an extent - your ability to take extraordinary, tiring action to specifically dodge out of the way, or to dodge not-quite-enough to avoid all of the damage. The damage you do take and the energy you expend on these more panicked/emergency dodges are drains on your ability to do the same in the future.

Reflex saves are the ability to dodge out of the way of broad area attacks, as a general rule (though it is somewhat inconsistently applied), and to quickly minimize your exposure to them. Without Evasion, most things which call for reflex saves are for half damage; you're just minimizing the amount of diminishing energy/luck/toughness you have to expend to avoid the worst of the harm by combining your "keep going all day" talents at dodging with those last-ditch bits of "oh crap!" avoidance.


Against one poison attack, it's reflex to avoid the attack, against another poison attack, it's fortitude to withstand the poison, against something else it works yet a different way, all on a case by case by case basis. Indeed. And each case makes sense: the reflex save is to avoid an expanding cloud of gas. The fortitude save is to resist something already in your system. (Though in truth, the reflex save is probably a two-save poison, at that point, as I don't know of any poisons which don't have a fortitude save once you've been affected.)


And "one is a diminishing resource, the other is not" makes no difference at all. "Resource pools" should only be used where they actually model a resource that can be diminished, not as a muddled overlapping mechanic for the sake of some "strategic experience". So... if you can get lucky once and have an arrow nick your ear rather than go through your eye socket, you can get that lucky every time? If you can realize at the last second that your skillful maneuvering hasn't been enough, but you can throw yourself to the side so the axe only grazes your calf rather than cutting you from shoulder to groin once, you can do that every time? And the wound to your calf won't slow you down and make it harder in the future?

You're being awfully arbitrary in what you're allowing to be a "diminishing resource." Again, it seems like your objection is, "Max_Killjoy doesn't like it, so it must be bad."


That's ironic, given that defenders of the D&D mechanics have been fishing for excuses for the system for decades, coming up with ways to avoid confronting the inherent flaws while looking down their nose at critics for "just not getting it." What inherent flaws? Abstraction is not a flaw in and of itself, no matter how much you dislike it.

"No, no, it's a muddy mess and a bad mechanic because I don't like how you link the abstractions up to what they model," isn't a proof. It's an opinion.


There's absolutely nothing intuitive about any of the mechanics being discussed here -- they make LESS sense the more one tries to connect them to what's being modeled/mapped. False. You dislike them more, and are (I suspect) deliberately crossing your eyes so you have a hard time grasping them. And yet, you've demonstrated you grasp them...but then throw your hands up and scream how awful it is because...you don't like it. You offer no reason beyond the fact that you don't like it and can't understand it when you've just demonstrated you do understand it.


Again... does AC represent avoiding hits, or do Hit Points represent avoiding hits, or do Reflex Saves represent avoiding hits? Which is it? All three do, in different ways, and you have shown you perfectly well get that in formulating your objections. You're entitled to your opinion. But having three mechanics all represent, in different ways, different manners of not being hit is not an inherent flaw to a system.

They DO represent three different things. You're either missing or deliberately ignoring the differences that have been outlined. The fact that all three on some level reflect "not getting slaughtered by that lethal blow" doesn't make them bad for being three different mechanics.

I could take your objections and use them to construct an argument for why the only mechanic that should exist is a d20 roll to see if you survive an encounter, because otherwise you're using too many different mechanics to all reflect that same end state.

I won't, because it's a straw man, but your objections are becoming more and more cartoonish as you get more and more insistent that your dislike for them means they're incomprehensible and inherently bad.


I see the ad hom has now started.
It's ad hominem to point out that your objection is an opinion which you're trying to state as objective fact?

[Max_Killjoy]

The best part about getting people to try to defend that mess is that the more they try to defend it, the more they illustrate its inherently convoluted, muddled, tangential, abstract, disassociated, disconnected nature for you.

And at some point, it almost always comes down to "you're just refusing to understand". (If there's not a formal name for that spurious argument, there should be.)

Seriously, nothing being said here in defense of D&D's mechanics refutes any of the criticisms being made, and in fact they're often saying "Yeah, that's exactly how it works!"

[Segev]

The best part about getting people to try to defend that mess is that the more they try to defend it, the more they illustrate its inherently convoluted, muddled, tangential, abstract, disassociated, disconnected nature for you. It's not convoluted, tangential, dissociated, nor disconnected.

It is admittedly abstract, and one can argue "muddled" by defining "muddled" to mean "the model represents things in a simplified manner which groups some subsets into supersets which divide them from other supersets to which they could otherwise be a part." This is going to be an inherent problem to modeling anything particularly complex.

The only thing being revealed is that you dislike it, and are trying to project that dislike into some objective truth that it is "bad" because you dislike it. You further go on to imply - if not outright assert - that there is something inherently wrong with anybody finding it sensible and useful.


And at some point, it almost always comes down to "you're just refusing to understand". (If there's not a formal name for that spurious argument, there should be.) Oddly, if somebody tries to explain that 2+2 is 4, and somebody else keeps insisting that it's just a horrible mess of insanity to try to add two numbers together, because clearly 2 and 2, no matter how you rotate the symbols, will never look like a 4 that isn't horribly muddled and filled with fillagrees not present in the real 4...

...yes, people might start to accuse the one making the latter argument of refusing to understand.

Heck, you keep saying it's muddled and dissociated and confusing and harping on three distinct mechanics ultimately representing (in whole or in part) some means of "not being hurt by the harmful effect." And then you turn around, after using these arguments (particularly the last one) which is implicitly saying that at least one of those is unrealistic to use to represent that, and claim you never said it wasn't realistic.

So yes, it draws into question either your intellectual honesty or your ability to understand what is being discussed.

It does NOT reveal that you're right, only that you're insisting that you must be because you dislike the mechanics and their explanations so very, very much that your dislike must be an objective fact. So much so that you ignore replies to your questions which don't affirm your view, instead asserting that making those replies makes it all the more revealed to be "bad."

"Well, two plus two is four because of these properties of math, and I can illustrate it with these four candies," doesn't reveal how confusing and horrible arithmetic is just because you decide that using candies makes it so.


Seriously, nothing being said here in defense of D&D's mechanics refutes any of the criticisms being made, and in fact they're often saying "Yeah, that's exactly how it works!"That's because your criticisms are often simply matters of opinion. "I don't like that this is how it works" doesn't make it a bad mechanic.

And yet you accuse me of ad hominem when I point out that that is the crux of your argument.

Show that it is BAD MECHANICS, demonstrate that it's somehow actually convoluted, tangential, or dissociated, and then that these are bad things (though I'll agree that convoluted probably is), or you don't really have a case.

All you've done is explain why you don't like it. The fact that you don't like it doesn't make it a bad mechanic, despite your claims.

[Max_Killjoy]

It's not convoluted, tangential, dissociated, nor disconnected.

It is admittedly abstract, and one can argue "muddled" by defining "muddled" to mean "the model represents things in a simplified manner which groups some subsets into supersets which divide them from other supersets to which they could otherwise be a part." This is going to be an inherent problem to modeling anything particularly complex.

The only thing being revealed is that you dislike it, and are trying to project that dislike into some objective truth that it is "bad" because you dislike it. You further go on to imply - if not outright assert - that there is something inherently wrong with anybody finding it sensible and useful.

Oddly, if somebody tries to explain that 2+2 is 4, and somebody else keeps insisting that it's just a horrible mess of insanity to try to add two numbers together, because clearly 2 and 2, no matter how you rotate the symbols, will never look like a 4 that isn't horribly muddled and filled with fillagrees not present in the real 4...

...yes, people might start to accuse the one making the latter argument of refusing to understand.

Heck, you keep saying it's muddled and dissociated and confusing and harping on three distinct mechanics ultimately representing (in whole or in part) some means of "not being hurt by the harmful effect." And then you turn around, after using these arguments (particularly the last one) which is implicitly saying that at least one of those is unrealistic to use to represent that, and claim you never said it wasn't realistic.

So yes, it draws into question either your intellectual honesty or your ability to understand what is being discussed.

It does NOT reveal that you're right, only that you're insisting that you must be because you dislike the mechanics and their explanations so very, very much that your dislike must be an objective fact. So much so that you ignore replies to your questions which don't affirm your view, instead asserting that making those replies makes it all the more revealed to be "bad."

"Well, two plus two is four because of these properties of math, and I can illustrate it with these four candies," doesn't reveal how confusing and horrible arithmetic is just because you decide that using candies makes it so.

That's because your criticisms are often simply matters of opinion. "I don't like that this is how it works" doesn't make it a bad mechanic.

And yet you accuse me of ad hominem when I point out that that is the crux of your argument.

Show that it is BAD MECHANICS, demonstrate that it's somehow actually convoluted, tangential, or dissociated, and then that these are bad things (though I'll agree that convoluted probably is), or you don't really have a case.

All you've done is explain why you don't like it. The fact that you don't like it doesn't make it a bad mechanic, despite your claims.


So now because I don't agree with you, I "reject math"? Wow.

Your ad-hom fallacies and strawmen continue to pile up here, and you continue to misrepresent my statements. You continue to put words in my mouth, and pretend to understand what's going on in my head and lie about my motivations.

We're done.

/plonk (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plonk_(Usenet))


Now, to summarize -- I've never claimed that D&D's rules are bad because I don't like them. I don't like them because they're bad. Objectively bad. They fail to map the territory or form a coherent model. They're bad because -- as repeatedly demonstrated in this thread and others -- they're muddled, and conflated, and overlap where they need to be distinct, and draw strange divisions that don't need to exist. One simple concrete thing will be split up into multiple abstract mechanisms, and then multiple complex things will be smashed together into one ill-fitting mechanic.

One example -- D&D's bloat-with-level hit points don't represent one thing, they (supposedly) represent multiple things, and each of those things overlaps with other mechanics in the game (as repeatedly demonstrated). Not only does this make trying to represent an event that could affect one of those things far less straightforward, a matter of debate, and in need of case-by-case adjudication for every new instance introduced into the system, it also means that otherwise identical outcomes in the mechanics need to be back-explained differently for different combinations of characters and situations. The same exact weapon hit -- same margin of success, same damage rolled, etc -- results in WILDLY different outcomes that need to be retro-justified and narrated in completely different ways depending on nothing more that which character happens to have been hit. There's a total disconnect there between the in-game-"reality" and the mechanisms being used to map it.

That is objectively bad game design.

[Keltest]

So now because I don't agree with you, I "reject math"? Wow.

Your ad-hom fallacies and strawmen continue to pile up here, and you continue to misrepresent my statements. You continue to put words in my mouth, and pretend to understand what's going on in my head and lie about my motivations.

We're done.

/plonk (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plonk_(Usenet))


Now, to summarize -- I've never claimed that D&D's rules are bad because I don't like them. I don't like them because they're bad. Objectively bad. They fail to map the territory or form a coherent model. They're bad because -- as repeatedly demonstrated in this thread and others -- they're muddled, and conflated, and overlap where they need to be distinct, and draw strange divisions that don't need to exist. One simple concrete thing will be split up into multiple abstract mechanisms, and then multiple complex things will be smashed together into one ill-fitting mechanic.

One example -- D&D's bloat-with-level hit points don't represent one thing, they (supposedly) represent multiple things, and each of those things overlaps with other mechanics in the game (as repeatedly demonstrated). Not only does this make trying to represent an event that could affect one of those things far less straightforward, a matter of debate, and in need of case-by-case adjudication for every new instance introduced into the system, it also means that otherwise identical outcomes in the mechanics need to be back-explained differently for different combinations of characters and situations. The same exact weapon hit -- same margin of success, same damage rolled, etc -- results in WILDLY different outcomes that need to be retro-justified and narrated in completely different ways depending on nothing more that which character happens to have been hit. There's a total disconnect there between the in-game-"reality" and the mechanisms being used to map it.

That is objectively bad game design.

You know, you keep saying that, and yet ignore refutations of that position and outright refuse to provide further examples. Claiming something does not make it so.

[Max_Killjoy]

You know, you keep saying that, and yet ignore refutations of that position and outright refuse to provide further examples. Claiming something does not make it so.


Of course I'm going to ignore refutations of things that I never said.

[Khedrac]

Folks,

please stop trying to justify why you feel rules are ridiculous or why you feel they are not. Accept that someone finds a rule ridiculous and move on.

The ridiculousness of a rule is down to personal opinion, and does not relate to whether the rule is "bad" or not - another matter of opinion.

Lots of games have rules that are ridiculous if you choose to look at them in the right way, does this make them bad? No.
If a game (i.e. ruleset) has lots of players who like it then it is probably "objectively" good. Does that mean you have to like it or agree with its principles? No.

You have been arguing a lot about D&D (and apparantly mainly 3rd Ed). Personally I do find a lot of the rules fairly ridiculous. I do not find them bad, indeed most of them work for me. The two are not exclusive.
What you are arguing about it mainly a position of emotion - and you cannot convince anyone of anything emotional by arguing - so neither of you will ever resolve this by continuing to try to convince the other. You are both right, from certain perspectives.

[Segev]

You said that D&D's rules are objectively bad.

The points you used to justify that claim were refuted.

You resorted to saying that you don't like the refutations (rather than demonstrating in any way that the refutations were incorrect), and asserted that because you don't like them, the rules of D&D are objectively bad.

When it was pointed out that you'd made that assertion, you accused people of ad hominem.

Now you're saying that you don't like D&D's rules because they're objectively bad...but failing to provide any unrefuted evidence that they are objectively bad beyond "I don't like them."

Perhaps if you actually addressed the replies to your questions, rather than resorting to a dismissal by virtue of said answers not making you like it (rather than actually demonstrating that those answers, as you assert, don't help the rules make sense), we might be able to discuss with you rather than point out that you're simply asserting without backup. It's not ad hominem to point out that somebody is asserting opinion as fact with no supporting evidence.

This is especially annoying behavior because you also are insisting that words are being put in your mouth, and accusing people (me, at least) of "projection" for calling you out on your implicit assertion that the rules are bad because they don't make sense and aren't realistic.

That you go on to try to claim I said you don't believe in math when I was clearly making an analogy to your method of argumentation only further reveals that your goal is to obfuscate and distract rather than actually defend your position, which you continue to assert and then insult anybody who disagrees with you while claiming to be insulted first (presumably as a defense against anybody calling you out on it).

[Max_Killjoy]

Folks,

please stop trying to justify why you feel rules are ridiculous or why you feel they are not. Accept that someone finds a rule ridiculous and move on.

The ridiculousness of a rule is down to personal opinion, and does not relate to whether the rule is "bad" or not - another matter of opinion.

Lots of games have rules that are ridiculous if you choose to look at them in the right way, does this make them bad? No.
If a game (i.e. ruleset) has lots of players who like it then it is probably "objectively" good. Does that mean you have to like it or agree with its principles? No.

You have been arguing a lot about D&D (and apparantly mainly 3rd Ed). Personally I do find a lot of the rules fairly ridiculous. I do not find them bad, indeed most of them work for me. The two are not exclusive.
What you are arguing about it mainly a position of emotion - and you cannot convince anyone of anything emotional by arguing - so neither of you will ever resolve this by continuing to try to convince the other. You are both right, from certain perspectives.


To me, whether a rule is ridiculous is a matter of objective standards for the mechanical design of a game system. It it's just a matter of emotional opinion, then maybe I should take this thread off my list to check and move on.


Either way, any and all discussion with Segev ENDED with my last response to that individual.

[Arbane]

Second... I wouldn't. I have zero interest in modelling the sins of Hollywood.

I think you mean the sins of Reality.

Cracked: 6 Soldiers Who Survived $#!% That Would Kill a Terminator (http://www.cracked.com/article_18429_6-soldiers-who-survived-****-that-would-kill-terminator.html)

Cracked again: 5 Insane Falls You Won't Believe People Survived (http://www.cracked.com/article_19996_5-insane-falls-you-wont-believe-people-survived.html)

Oh, another fun thing: With D&D hitpoints, but without magic, feats, or other special stuff, it's impossible to have someone stagger up to you wounded, gasp out a few words, and die.

[Max_Killjoy]

I think you mean the sins of Reality.

Cracked: 6 Soldiers Who Survived $#!% That Would Kill a Terminator (http://www.cracked.com/article_18429_6-soldiers-who-survived-****-that-would-kill-terminator.html)

Cracked again: 5 Insane Falls You Won't Believe People Survived (http://www.cracked.com/article_19996_5-insane-falls-you-wont-believe-people-survived.html)



No, not the sins of reality.

"Because it happens 1 in 10000000 times in reality" is not in any form or way or stretch any sort of cover for the stupidity of it happening routinely in fiction.

See also, "but this one time a car that crashed did blow up, and besides it's what people want to see".

[Segev]

No, not the sins of reality.

"Because it happens 1 in 10000000 times in reality" is not in any form or way or stretch any sort of cover for the stupidity of it happening routinely in fiction.

See also, "but this one time a car that crashed did blow up, and besides it's what people want to see".

The fiction is about those kinds of people, taken to the extreme. Again, you're saying the mechanics are "ridiculous" and leaning on it not being realistic to you, and claiming that the very notion that anybody might like a game where they play that kind of stalwart, tough, and impressive character is somehow evidence that the game designed for them is "bad" (which, also, implies they're bad).

[Keltest]

To me, whether a rule is ridiculous is a matter of objective standards for the mechanical design of a game system. It it's just a matter of emotional opinion, then maybe I should take this thread off my list to check and move on.


Either way, any and all discussion with Segev ENDED with my last response to that individual.

Then perhaps you could explain to me how AC, Saves and HP fail these "objective standards" for what theyre attempting to do? Because they certainly seem to handle it effectively to me.

[Max_Killjoy]

Then perhaps you could explain to me how AC, Saves and HP fail these "objective standards" for what theyre attempting to do? Because they certainly seem to handle it effectively to me.

I have -- repeatedly at this point.

[Flickerdart]

"Because it happens 1 in 10000000 times in reality" is not in any form or way or stretch any sort of cover for the stupidity of it happening routinely in fiction.

Heroic fantasy is about 1 in 1,000,000,000 individuals. They do improbable things. If you don't want that, don't play heroic fantasy games.

[Segev]

I have -- repeatedly at this point.

And the objective standards you've explicitly set have been demonstrated to be met by the mechanics. You then expressed your personal distaste for them as a reason to reject the explanations. And ignored answers to your questions in favor of insulting everybody who doesn't agree with you while asserting, again, your opinion as fact.

[Max_Killjoy]

Heroic fantasy is about 1 in 1,000,000,000 individuals. They do improbable things. If you don't want that, don't play heroic fantasy games.


If you say so.

[ace rooster]

I think now is the time to bring up the sword fighting rule set that is simultaniously the most ridiculous, and most wonderful.

Monkey island's sword fights.

Sword fights are won and lost based on trash talk.


The 3.5 rule set does have some... quirks, but because they never really decided what the various numbers meant, it is hard to pin down where the thing really gets wierd. Many rules were written under the assumption that beating somebody's AC meant that you hit them, where the HP mechanic implies that you may not have. For example: improved grab. Even epic fighters will struggle to compete with a gargantuan scorpion without their gear, because their defense is represented by HP, but the people that wrote improved grab thought it was AC.

I don't mind using HP to represent defense, and from that perspective the ridiculous rules are the ones that think AC is supposed to be your (active) defense. Equally, I don't mind the idea that AC is your defence, and from that perspective the complete lack of scaling of AC is the ridiculous bit.

From a game design perspective, this failure to decide what was responsible for representing defence has left us a system with some gaping cracks. With experience, you can build characters that patch up most/all of them, but it makes it hard work, particularly for the DM. In this sense it is pretty bad 'design'. The game is vulnerable to slaloming around the rules, finding an attack that slips through without interacting with a target's defences. Shivering touch is a great example.

[Max_Killjoy]

The 3.5 rule set does have some... quirks, but because they never really decided what the various numbers meant, it is hard to pin down where the thing really gets wierd. Many rules were written under the assumption that beating somebody's AC meant that you hit them, where the HP mechanic implies that you may not have. For example: improved grab. Even epic fighters will struggle to compete with a gargantuan scorpion without their gear, because their defense is represented by HP, but the people that wrote improved grab thought it was AC.

I don't mind using HP to represent defense, and from that perspective the ridiculous rules are the ones that think AC is supposed to be your (active) defense. Equally, I don't mind the idea that AC is your defence, and from that perspective the complete lack of scaling of AC is the ridiculous bit.

From a game design perspective, this failure to decide what was responsible for representing defence has left us a system with some gaping cracks. With experience, you can build characters that patch up most/all of them, but it makes it hard work, particularly for the DM. In this sense it is pretty bad 'design'. The game is vulnerable to slaloming around the rules, finding an attack that slips through without interacting with a target's defences. Shivering touch is a great example.


Exactly -- and that's what happens when multiple mechanisms and multiple parts of the "territory" all overlap in mixed sets of "kinda".

[Segev]

Eh. There is no requirement in hp that a hit not be a hit. Merely that a "hit" be glancing or otherwise not terribly damaging. A grapple that hits meets those criteria, and in fact doesn't even interact with the hp part of the system until you get to the damage dealt by other rules. Which can be representing a number of things, including simply wearing out the grappled victim as he strives not to be put into a lethal head-choke.

[ace rooster]

Eh. There is no requirement in hp that a hit not be a hit. Merely that a "hit" be glancing or otherwise not terribly damaging. A grapple that hits meets those criteria, and in fact doesn't even interact with the hp part of the system until you get to the damage dealt by other rules. Which can be representing a number of things, including simply wearing out the grappled victim as he strives not to be put into a lethal head-choke.

My problem with it is not with the simulation aspect of it (where it is a mess anyway), it is with the game implications of it. If your defence is represented by HP and saves, with the idea being that damage is defended by HP, and status effects are defended by saves, then getting grappled (a status effect) should be defended by a save. The people that wrote it seem to have thought that AC was your defence, and that beating AC meant something had gotten through your defences, when the original intention looks different.

You cannot play a character 'out of the box' because even basic MM monsters will simply kill you. They have attacks that you do not get any scaling defence against without side effort, and unless you have read the monster manual (why would you if you are playing a fighter) you would not know until you tried to fight a bear. I regard that as bad design.

[Segev]

My problem with it is not with the simulation aspect of it (where it is a mess anyway), it is with the game implications of it. If your defence is represented by HP and saves, with the idea being that damage is defended by HP, and status effects are defended by saves, then getting grappled (a status effect) should be defended by a save. The people that wrote it seem to have thought that AC was your defence, and that beating AC meant something had gotten through your defences, when the original intention looks different.

You cannot play a character 'out of the box' because even basic MM monsters will simply kill you. They have attacks that you do not get any scaling defence against without side effort, and unless you have read the monster manual (why would you if you are playing a fighter) you would not know until you tried to fight a bear. I regard that as bad design.

AC is a defense. So are hp. Hp are the last ditch defense against "lethal/fatal/incapacitating injury." Grappling is defended by AC and by an opposed grapple check.

That said, few people would argue that D&D's grappling rules are good.

[Max_Killjoy]

My problem with it is not with the simulation aspect of it (where it is a mess anyway), it is with the game implications of it. If your defence is represented by HP and saves, with the idea being that damage is defended by HP, and status effects are defended by saves, then getting grappled (a status effect) should be defended by a save. The people that wrote it seem to have thought that AC was your defence, and that beating AC meant something had gotten through your defences, when the original intention looks different.

You cannot play a character 'out of the box' because even basic MM monsters will simply kill you. They have attacks that you do not get any scaling defence against without side effort, and unless you have read the monster manual (why would you if you are playing a fighter) you would not know until you tried to fight a bear. I regard that as bad design.

Forum needs +1 function.

[Quertus]

Armor and the dexterity bonus have shared the same mechanical effect against the to-hit roll of attacker, at least as far back as the boxed sets. If the attacker doesn't make their roll against the combined/conflated ARMOR CLASS, then no damage is even rolled.

That's either "armor makes you harder to hit" or a terrible abstraction.

First, I highly doubt that was ever the intent with D&D, which is more a case of taking in abstractions and presumptions from wargaming.

Second... I wouldn't. I have zero interest in modelling the sins of Hollywood.


The difference to a target between "The target was not damage because the blade did not penetrate their armor" and "the target was not damaged because the blade did not connect with the target at all" is negligible. If you must, think of it as armor making you harder to hurt, not hit.

When a 5-year-old is trying to hit me with a padded sword, I can dodge out of the way, or parry the blade with my coffee mug, or hastily don a cardboard box worth of "armor". I have no problem with a game modeling all of these with the same mechanic.

On the other hand, no-one most people would not enjoy a system that accurately modeled every last detail of how that fight actually proceeded. Because, for each blow, one would have to evaluate... their skill, my skill, their spacial/terrain awareness, my spacial/terrain awareness, my awareness of (the gaps in) their spacial/terrain awareness, how many moves I've thought ahead, their stamina, my stamina, my mental stamina, their learning curve, my learning curve, their memory of the specific tricks I've already used (separate from their learning curve), their ability to read my body language, my ability to read their telegraphed moves, etc etc etc.

Abstracting all that to attack bonus, AC, and HP loses a lot, but doesn't sound like a bad thing for a game to me.


The best part about getting people to try to defend that mess is that the more they try to defend it, the more they illustrate its inherently convoluted, muddled, tangential, abstract, disassociated, disconnected nature for you.

And at some point, it almost always comes down to "you're just refusing to understand". (If there's not a formal name for that spurious argument, there should be.)

Seriously, nothing being said here in defense of D&D's mechanics refutes any of the criticisms being made, and in fact they're often saying "Yeah, that's exactly how it works!"


Now, to summarize -- I've never claimed that D&D's rules are bad because I don't like them. I don't like them because they're bad. Objectively bad. They fail to map the territory or form a coherent model. They're bad because -- as repeatedly demonstrated in this thread and others -- they're muddled, and conflated, and overlap where they need to be distinct, and draw strange divisions that don't need to exist. One simple concrete thing will be split up into multiple abstract mechanisms, and then multiple complex things will be smashed together into one ill-fitting mechanic.

One example -- D&D's bloat-with-level hit points don't represent one thing, they (supposedly) represent multiple things, and each of those things overlaps with other mechanics in the game (as repeatedly demonstrated). Not only does this make trying to represent an event that could affect one of those things far less straightforward, a matter of debate, and in need of case-by-case adjudication for every new instance introduced into the system, it also means that otherwise identical outcomes in the mechanics need to be back-explained differently for different combinations of characters and situations. The same exact weapon hit -- same margin of success, same damage rolled, etc -- results in WILDLY different outcomes that need to be retro-justified and narrated in completely different ways depending on nothing more that which character happens to have been hit. There's a total disconnect there between the in-game-"reality" and the mechanisms being used to map it.

That is objectively bad game design.

Other than healing, where I agree that it just feels weird to think about, why do you feel that the various things that combine to form HP and AC need to be disentangle? What do we gain that is worth losing simplicity? I don't think that it would make the game more intuitive, because even if I used a system I wrote to model my dodging a 5-year-olds padded weapon as long as possible, well, if it contained everything I use in that scenario, I don't think anyone would find it intuitive.

Counterpoint to most of your last post: I roll exactly the same result on mind control or diplomacy "convince", but depending on my target's willpower or desire to perform the action I'm trying to convince them to do, the exact same rolls result in wildly different results, which need to "back-explained" and be narrated differently. That is objectively bad game design.

[Max_Killjoy]

When a 5-year-old is trying to hit me with a padded sword, I can dodge out of the way, or parry the blade with my coffee mug, or hastily don a cardboard box worth of "armor". I have no problem with a game modeling all of these with the same mechanic.

On the other hand, no-one most people would not enjoy a system that accurately modeled every last detail of how that fight actually proceeded. Because, for each blow, one would have to evaluate... their skill, my skill, their spacial/terrain awareness, my spacial/terrain awareness, my awareness of (the gaps in) their spacial/terrain awareness, how many moves I've thought ahead, their stamina, my stamina, my mental stamina, their learning curve, my learning curve, their memory of the specific tricks I've already used (separate from their learning curve), their ability to read my body language, my ability to read their telegraphed moves, etc etc etc.

Abstracting all that to attack bonus, AC, and HP loses a lot, but doesn't sound like a bad thing for a game to me.


If something going on "in world" would affect one of the factors scrambled up in AC, HP, Saves, etc, and the DM needs to make a judgement call because it's not something covered in the RAW... or a new skill or spell or feat would most accurately be modeled via one of those entangled factors... what does it actually do?

The thing is, reading through many of the Feats, they don't even appear to be designed around actually modelling anything at all -- but rather as direct "modify this in-rules aspect of the game as a game".




Other than healing, where I agree that it just feels weird to think about, why do you feel that the various things that combine to form HP and AC need to be disentangle? What do we gain that is worth losing simplicity? I don't think that it would make the game more intuitive, because even if I used a system I wrote to model my dodging a 5-year-olds padded weapon as long as possible, well, if it contained everything I use in that scenario, I don't think anyone would find it intuitive.

Counterpoint to most of your last post: I roll exactly the same result on mind control or diplomacy "convince", but depending on my target's willpower or desire to perform the action I'm trying to convince them to do, the exact same rolls result in wildly different results, which need to "back-explained" and be narrated differently. That is objectively bad game design.


Note that I said "identical margin of success" -- short version, all of those factors should be covered somehow in the margin if success consideration (details depending on how the systems handles such modifiers, but also not important to this example or discussion).

Contrast D&D HP, which can drastically change the nature of a hit, to the point of requiring that "back explanation" and completely divergent "color commentary", when every last other factor is absolutely equal and identical. It even radically changes on the same exact character depending on whether they've already taken damage and how much damage.

[RazorChain]

I think you mean the sins of Reality.

Cracked: 6 Soldiers Who Survived $#!% That Would Kill a Terminator (http://www.cracked.com/article_18429_6-soldiers-who-survived-****-that-would-kill-terminator.html)

Cracked again: 5 Insane Falls You Won't Believe People Survived (http://www.cracked.com/article_19996_5-insane-falls-you-wont-believe-people-survived.html)

Oh, another fun thing: With D&D hitpoints, but without magic, feats, or other special stuff, it's impossible to have someone stagger up to you wounded, gasp out a few words, and die.

Take those people that survived the fall and drop them again....and again....and again. See how many falls they will survive. A high level character can consistently jump off a 200' cliff and survive, and then they just pick themselves up and walk away like nothing.

The high HP pool just makes the character superhuman. Armor Class is to protect you from getting damaged and HP is to soak up the damage. IMO the ridiculousness is in the inconsistency unless going up levels and gaining extra HP makes you superhuman, one day you would keel over being shot with a .22 and the next you laugh off a RPG.

As for hollywood logic the guys that fall into the trap are usually toast, the hero grabs the ledge and doesn't fall into the spikes. If we would rename HP to Luck then I guess it would make sense, when you run out of luck you die.

[Thrudd]

If we want to talk about ways games are terrible at verisimilitude, look at the way almost every RPG treats melee combat/fighting. At the level of abstraction most games operate on, melee combat should not separate offensive and defensive capabilities. For fighting, there should not be an attack skill and a defense skill, or an attack ability and an unrelated static defense score that is not connected to fighting ability. In terms of real fighting skill, there is no separation between offense and defense. A person isn't going to be a great fighter but bad at defending themselves, or good at defending themselves in a fight but bad a fighting in general. There are a few games out there where combat is an opposed roll of a fighting skill, and that's how it should be for the level of abstraction that is reasonable for most RPGs.

[RazorChain]

If we want to talk about ways games are terrible at verisimilitude, look at the way almost every RPG treats melee combat/fighting. At the level of abstraction most games operate on, melee combat should not separate offensive and defensive capabilities. For fighting, there should not be an attack skill and a defense skill, or an attack ability and an unrelated static defense score that is not connected to fighting ability. In terms of real fighting skill, there is no separation between offense and defense. A person isn't going to be a great fighter but bad at defending themselves, or good at defending themselves in a fight but bad a fighting in general. There are a few games out there where combat is an opposed roll of a fighting skill, and that's how it should be for the level of abstraction that is reasonable for most RPGs.


There is actually a lot of systems where this hangs together where you might for example have Ability+Skill+Die vs Ability+Skill+Die and the one that rolls highter wins and rolls for damage. Or system where your defense is based off your weapon skill. What lot of system diffrentiate is weapon skill and dodging ability.

When I think on the systems I've played most of them base defense upon your weapon skill or dodge.

[Keltest]

Take those people that survived the fall and drop them again....and again....and again. See how many falls they will survive. A high level character can consistently jump off a 200' cliff and survive, and then they just pick themselves up and walk away like nothing.

The high HP pool just makes the character superhuman. Armor Class is to protect you from getting damaged and HP is to soak up the damage. IMO the ridiculousness is in the inconsistency unless going up levels and gaining extra HP makes you superhuman, one day you would keel over being shot with a .22 and the next you laugh off a RPG.

As for hollywood logic the guys that fall into the trap are usually toast, the hero grabs the ledge and doesn't fall into the spikes. If we would rename HP to Luck then I guess it would make sense, when you run out of luck you die.

If youre specifically concerned about fall damage not being high enough, that's just a matter of tweaking the numbers. It is, at worst, a fault of the falling damage calculations and not the overall HP rule. Ditto with being on fire, though what you guys seem to think being "on fire" means (full body blaze) is definitely different from what the authors of the rule book were thinking (a limb or hair burning). True, the rules don't cover that extreme effectively, but its generally not a scenario that will come up too often, since anything that will set you on fire that much is probably going to take away most of your HP in the main blast.

[soldersbushwack]

It is possible to create magical portals in GURPS Ritual Path Magic that transport people to other places. RAW at the end of the portal spell's duration people who went through the portal are sent back to their original position.


Unless the spell is instantaneous, see the Spell Modifiers Table (below). A caster can return after the fact (before the spell lapses) and add more energy to prolong the duration, but not by more than the original time; see After Casting (p. 22) for details. Aside from healing and damaging spells, no ritual effect is permanent; all will eventually expire.

- Thaumatology - Ritual Path Magic P. 18

Because only healing and damaging effects are permanent the effect of moving someone to another place is not permanent and therefore wears off after the spell ends.

[jindra34]

It is possible to create magical portals in GURPS Ritual Path Magic that transport people to other places. RAW at the end of the portal spell's duration people who went through the portal are sent back to their original position.



- Thaumatology - Ritual Path Magic P. 18

Because only healing and damaging effects are permanent the effect of moving someone to another place is not permanent and therefore wears off after the spell ends.

Eh... there are three spell durations in GURPS, Instantaneous, Maintained, or Permanent. What you qouted just redefines the last group.

[Quertus]

If something going on "in world" would affect one of the factors scrambled up in AC, HP, Saves, etc, and the DM needs to make a judgement call because it's not something covered in the RAW... or a new skill or spell or feat would most accurately be modeled via one of those entangled factors... what does it actually do?

The thing is, reading through many of the Feats, they don't even appear to be designed around actually modelling anything at all -- but rather as direct "modify this in-rules aspect of the game as a game".

You mean, should moving faster increase your AC, number of attacks, reflex save, initiative, casting time, or movement rate? Yeah, haste through the years has had problems deciding what it should improve.

But, really, I don't see it being any different than being lucky, but only at dice, or only at avoiding being hit, or only at hitting people, or only at saying just the right thing to get people to tell you their darkest secrets. It allows you to apply the same descriptor - in this case, luck - to a number of different situations, and tailor the effect you desire.

All the feats I could think of off the top of my head had fluff beyond "+1 AC". Can you give examples of the feats that bother you by only existing in game terms?


If we want to talk about ways games are terrible at verisimilitude, look at the way almost every RPG treats melee combat/fighting. At the level of abstraction most games operate on, melee combat should not separate offensive and defensive capabilities. For fighting, there should not be an attack skill and a defense skill, or an attack ability and an unrelated static defense score that is not connected to fighting ability. In terms of real fighting skill, there is no separation between offense and defense. A person isn't going to be a great fighter but bad at defending themselves, or good at defending themselves in a fight but bad a fighting in general. There are a few games out there where combat is an opposed roll of a fighting skill, and that's how it should be for the level of abstraction that is reasonable for most RPGs.

I'm not sure if it's awesome or ridiculous (or maybe both!), but in Shadow Run, all melee was opposed rolls. And, regardless of who initiated the attack, the winner damages the loser.

[zergling.exe]

Hilariously no WotC version of D&D addresses size adjustment for thrown and missile weapons. Ergo, by the rules, in 5e a creature with 15' reach can only throw a net as far as his arms reach and does so at disadvantage if the target is not directly adjacent to his body. The bows wielded by 3" tall fairys have the same range as bows wielded by giants.

Month old, but wanted to point out that the Arms and Equipment Guide published shortly before 3.5 has rules for larger and smaller ranged weapons. Notably a 25% increase or decrease in range for increasing or decreasing size respectively. Though it does use 3.0 weapon size rules and not 3.5.

edit: This humoursly allows a character to throw larger weapons farther than smaller weapons. :smallbiggrin:

[Thrudd]

You mean, should moving faster increase your AC, number of attacks, reflex save, initiative, casting time, or movement rate? Yeah, haste through the years has had problems deciding what it should improve.

But, really, I don't see it being any different than being lucky, but only at dice, or only at avoiding being hit, or only at hitting people, or only at saying just the right thing to get people to tell you their darkest secrets. It allows you to apply the same descriptor - in this case, luck - to a number of different situations, and tailor the effect you desire.

All the feats I could think of off the top of my head had fluff beyond "+1 AC". Can you give examples of the feats that bother you by only existing in game terms?



I'm not sure if it's awesome or ridiculous (or maybe both!), but in Shadow Run, all melee was opposed rolls. And, regardless of who initiated the attack, the winner damages the loser.
Yeah, that's my favorite style

[weaseldust]

The HP and AC system is a neat solution to a certain set of demands. You want some aspects of a character's defence to degrade as they get hit. That way you can differentiate between characters with better and worse endurance, and you get a sense of suspense and investment from the player as their character's defence drops lower and lower. But you also want some aspects of their defence to stay constant, especially the contribution of their gear and skill, because seeing those lost is just frustrating for the player. So you just give characters both kinds of defence and call them different things.

What each one corresponds to in narrative terms will vary according to the circumstances, but that's not really an issue as the mechanics are only representing defence at a very coarse grain ("is this going to be diminished over time or not?"), rather than the finer-grained "is this luck, health, skill, or whatever?". In practice, I find, DnD players quickly get quite skilled at telling a story that makes sense to them based on the result of the rolls, which is all you could want, really.

That's not to say that that set of demands is the best set to cater to, or that other solutions are not available, or even that the result is not in some sense ridiculous.


One somewhat ridiculous aspect of all forms of DnD I'm familiar with is that ranged attacks that miss are ignored thereafter, even if you were aiming at a creature in the middle of a crowd. I think in 5e there's an optional rule for hitting a creature if you miss another that was using it as cover, but that only covers a small proportion of the circumstances in which missing might have significant collateral effects. I do acknowledge that it kind of makes sense to ignore for the sake of speeding up play. Especially as, on a miss, it's fine for the DM to just choose what happens to the shot, since it's out of the player's control already, so they could always choose to have it hit whatever makes sense, or pick a random result.

[Quertus]

One somewhat ridiculous aspect of all forms of DnD I'm familiar with is that ranged attacks that miss are ignored thereafter, even if you were aiming at a creature in the middle of a crowd. I think in 5e there's an optional rule for hitting a creature if you miss another that was using it as cover, but that only covers a small proportion of the circumstances in which missing might have significant collateral effects. I do acknowledge that it kind of makes sense to ignore for the sake of speeding up play. Especially as, on a miss, it's fine for the DM to just choose what happens to the shot, since it's out of the player's control already, so they could always choose to have it hit whatever makes sense, or pick a random result.

No, it's... worse than that. :smallfrown:

All (?) editions of D&D have concepts of firing into melee, attacking into a grapple, and firing against targets that have cover. And hitting unintended targets in these circumstances.

But

Only certain effects, seemingly chosen at random, have the concept of collateral damage / things that happen if you just plain miss.

Some things have the concept of scatter, where they land X distance in random direction Y from the intended target.

Some things have the concept of continuing along their path until they strike something, making new attack rolls for anything they encounter.

Some things have the concept of striking an unintended target / avoiding obstacles along their flight path.

And some things have no such rules.

-----

EDIT: I finally remembered what is probably my personal choice for most ridiculous (D&D) rule: landing (in 2e?).

A dragon attacks the castle (to take the princess, of course). The knights rush out, and are roasted by the dragon's breath as it flies overhead. Victorious, the dragon attempts to land in the courtyard... and promptly dies. It dies because my thief was hiding there, making the area occupied. Fliers attempting to (or forced to) land in occupied squares die. Period. Never mind that it could crush every bone in my body without even noticing, nope, square's occupied, dragon dies.

My handsome dragon-slaying rogue marries the princess, and they live happily ever after.

And people wonder why dragons are so "dumb" as to fight adventurers from the ground.

[RazorChain]

If youre specifically concerned about fall damage not being high enough, that's just a matter of tweaking the numbers. It is, at worst, a fault of the falling damage calculations and not the overall HP rule. Ditto with being on fire, though what you guys seem to think being "on fire" means (full body blaze) is definitely different from what the authors of the rule book were thinking (a limb or hair burning). True, the rules don't cover that extreme effectively, but its generally not a scenario that will come up too often, since anything that will set you on fire that much is probably going to take away most of your HP in the main blast.

It's not that, falling damage is just good for comparison. In DnD you start where a fall of 10'-20' might kill you but then you can survive a 200' fall later. If AC is supposed to be armor and the ability to avoid blows then HP actually becomes your injury threshold and that means you are taking damage at higher levels that kills normal humans many times over and without any consequence or detriment.

Some have tried to explain HP as luck or skill to mitigate damage but I don't buy into it as you always need more powerful healing. And most situation give you a chance to mitigate damage either by saving throws or AC. So the conclusion must be that characters become superhuman, fighting on with multiple arrows sticking out and large gaping wounds.

I mean nobody is going to buy into that the dragon they are fighting isn't hurt after they chop, stab, and hurt it. If the DM would just shrug it off and say you took a chunk of it's luck or it used his HP skill to mitigate damage. So if the players expect that after whittling that dragon from 150 HP down to 10 that it's bleeding and gravely wounded then I expect the same should apply to them.

[Quertus]

I think I have my second choice for most ridiculous rules in D&D: E6.

There are monsters in E6 games that are clearly above ECL 6. How is this possible?

Yet, even worse, there are clerics. How the **** can the clerics get spells from a level 6 "deity"?

[Hytheter]

I think I have my second choice for most ridiculous rules in D&D: E6.

There are monsters in E6 games that are clearly above ECL 6. How is this possible?

Yet, even worse, there are clerics. How the **** can the clerics get spells from a level 6 "deity"?

I feel like this shouldn't have to be explained, but E6 limitations obviously don't apply to everything in the setting. It's a limitation on player characters to keep them within a certain boundary of power. I would expect most GMs to keep player-like NPCs in the same range, but monsters and especially gods are obviously not beholden to the level cap.

[TheTeaMustFlow]

EDIT: I finally remembered what is probably my personal choice for most ridiculous (D&D) rule: landing (in 2e?).

A dragon attacks the castle (to take the princess, of course). The knights rush out, and are roasted by the dragon's breath as it flies overhead. Victorious, the dragon attempts to land in the courtyard... and promptly dies. It dies because my thief was hiding there, making the area occupied. Fliers attempting to (or forced to) land in occupied squares die. Period. Never mind that it could crush every bone in my body without even noticing, nope, square's occupied, dragon dies.

My handsome dragon-slaying rogue marries the princess, and they live happily ever after.

And people wonder why dragons are so "dumb" as to fight adventurers from the ground.

...I've never heard of this rule, in 2e or any other edition. I'm gonna call citation needed on this one.

[Quertus]

I feel like this shouldn't have to be explained, but E6 limitations obviously don't apply to everything in the setting. It's a limitation on player characters to keep them within a certain boundary of power. I would expect most GMs to keep player-like NPCs in the same range, but monsters and especially gods are obviously not beholden to the level cap.

Your post made much more sense when I misread it by adding an "r" to the last word. :smalltongue:

Also, "we're not all playing by the same rules" is a bug, not a feature. But, fine, I guess that makes it a different kind of ridiculous.


...I've never heard of this rule, in 2e or any other edition. I'm gonna call citation needed on this one.

A good call. So far, I'm only able to confirm that it's not in the 2e DMG.

... I seem to recall someone saying that they had a file with all of 2e files in one document. Link? That's make searching much faster... (and, potentially, possible, as I may have read it in a book I don't own).

[georgie_leech]

Your post made much more sense when I misread it by adding an "r" to the last word. :smalltongue:

Also, "we're not all playing by the same rules" is a bug, not a feature. But, fine, I guess that makes it a different kind of ridiculous.




While I can see the appeal for games without limits on power, you really think it's ridiculous for monsters and gods to be able to attain powers beyond what mortals are capable of? :smallconfused:

[Jormengand]

I finally remembered what is probably my personal choice for most ridiculous (D&D) rule: landing (in 2e?).

A dragon attacks the castle (to take the princess, of course). The knights rush out, and are roasted by the dragon's breath as it flies overhead. Victorious, the dragon attempts to land in the courtyard... and promptly dies. It dies because my thief was hiding there, making the area occupied. Fliers attempting to (or forced to) land in occupied squares die. Period. Never mind that it could crush every bone in my body without even noticing, nope, square's occupied, dragon dies.

My handsome dragon-slaying rogue marries the princess, and they live happily ever after.

And people wonder why dragons are so "dumb" as to fight adventurers from the ground.

There's also a similar rule in Warhammer 40,000 (the tabletop game) - if you drop a tank out of the sky, a tank which is reinforced to the effect that it can survive that fall, and it lands on a single human or even weaker creature, or even within an inch of that human, it suffers the mishap, rather than the human dying because a tank landed on him.


Your post made much more sense when I misread it by adding an "r" to the last word. :smalltongue:

Also, "we're not all playing by the same rules" is a bug, not a feature. But, fine, I guess that makes it a different kind of ridiculous.

The implication here being that deities play by the normal rules for PCs, what with their ability to cast ninth-level spells at will (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/divine/divineRanksAndPowers.htm#spellLikeAbilities) and all.

[Keltest]

It's not that, falling damage is just good for comparison. In DnD you start where a fall of 10'-20' might kill you but then you can survive a 200' fall later. If AC is supposed to be armor and the ability to avoid blows then HP actually becomes your injury threshold and that means you are taking damage at higher levels that kills normal humans many times over and without any consequence or detriment.

Some have tried to explain HP as luck or skill to mitigate damage but I don't buy into it as you always need more powerful healing. And most situation give you a chance to mitigate damage either by saving throws or AC. So the conclusion must be that characters become superhuman, fighting on with multiple arrows sticking out and large gaping wounds.

I mean nobody is going to buy into that the dragon they are fighting isn't hurt after they chop, stab, and hurt it. If the DM would just shrug it off and say you took a chunk of it's luck or it used his HP skill to mitigate damage. So if the players expect that after whittling that dragon from 150 HP down to 10 that it's bleeding and gravely wounded then I expect the same should apply to them.

I don't find it particularly ridiculous that Fighter McToughGuy with his years of adventuring could have a combination of experience (to know how to take a fall without going splat) and general toughness (because it will still hurt) could conceivably survive a fall that would kill a peasant who got pushed off that same ledge. Barring magical aid, it will still take him around a week of heavy bed rest before he is fully recovered from that fall, assuming the Massive Damage rules don't kick in and kill him.

[Segev]

You cannot play a character 'out of the box' because even basic MM monsters will simply kill you. They have attacks that you do not get any scaling defence against without side effort, and unless you have read the monster manual (why would you if you are playing a fighter) you would not know until you tried to fight a bear. I regard that as bad design.

While it is possible to run into badly-CR'd monsters, this generally has not been my experience. Playing a party of characters "out of the box" against an appropriate-CR monster "out of the box" generally results in a challenging fight, but the chances of losing even one PC are low (if it's the first fight of the day, at least). D&D was designed with a certain amount of PC death expected, though, so it's not surprising that it happens when played "out of the box."

[Max_Killjoy]

I don't find it particularly ridiculous that Fighter McToughGuy with his years of adventuring could have a combination of experience (to know how to take a fall without going splat) and general toughness (because it will still hurt) could conceivably survive a fall that would kill a peasant who got pushed off that same ledge. Barring magical aid, it will still take him around a week of heavy bed rest before he is fully recovered from that fall, assuming the Massive Damage rules don't kick in and kill him.

Are we talking a 20' fall, or a 200' fall?

The 20' fall can easily kill the peasant, but the hardened adventurer can be seen as knowing how to mitigate that sort of fall.

The 200' fall kills them both barring one of the aforementioned "miracle" landings.

[Segev]

Some have tried to explain HP as luck or skill to mitigate damage but I don't buy into it as you always need more powerful healing.Magical healing does more than close wounds. It relieves fatigue and combat-induced stress, restores adrenaline-drained reserves, and if there is an exhaustible supply of "luck," it also replenishes that.

Fred the level 20 Fighter doesn't have a sucking gut wound from a great sword nearly cutting him in half; he only has a scratch from where he used his elbow to slam into the flat of the blade and help push himself along to get out around it. But the snap reaction took energy, and his attention was strained just a bit (leaving him with less mental energy for the next attack), in addition to that hurt.

Now, he has a LOT of attention and energy and even just plain fortune to avoid harm. But they're still expended.

Cam the level 1 Commoner is at -8 hp, nearly cut in half by that same great sword hit. But he didn't even notice it until it'd gotten him, and he didn't have (nor expend) the fortune nor the mental attention to combat-detail nor the adrenaline-soaked action to avoid it.

Both require about 12 hp of healing. That will close the fatal wound on Pete. It will close the less-than-impressive wound on Fred, as well as restoring his mental "cool" and his combat energy reserves, repairing any damage done by the adrenaline and restoring even that so he has it for future use.

Healing magic has to do the same amount of "work" on both of them. It's just more about restoring obvious physical damage to the flesh on Cam.


And most situation give you a chance to mitigate damage either by saving throws or AC. So the conclusion must be that characters become superhuman, fighting on with multiple arrows sticking out and large gaping wounds.That's not true. I mean, it could be how you depict it; it's certainly within the source myths for D&D. But it's not required. Fred might have just been dodging arrows and having them bounce off his armor (represented by his AC), and using his sword or whatever he has at hand to catch the remaining ones - cutting them out of the air, or letting them glance off his arms, or whatever - but he can only do it for so long before he makes a mistake. And that, too, is his hp. He's more and more distracted, leaves more openings as the fight goes on.


I mean nobody is going to buy into that the dragon they are fighting isn't hurt after they chop, stab, and hurt it. If the DM would just shrug it off and say you took a chunk of it's luck or it used his HP skill to mitigate damage. So if the players expect that after whittling that dragon from 150 HP down to 10 that it's bleeding and gravely wounded then I expect the same should apply to them."You've scraped off some of his scales, and left numerous cuts. They don't appear life-threatening, but the great beast is slower, and you're finding your hits are getting surer."

I don't see the problem.


It's not that, falling damage is just good for comparison. In DnD you start where a fall of 10'-20' might kill you but then you can survive a 200' fall later. If AC is supposed to be armor and the ability to avoid blows then HP actually becomes your injury threshold and that means you are taking damage at higher levels that kills normal humans many times over and without any consequence or detriment.


Are we talking a 20' fall, or a 200' fall?

The 20' fall can easily kill the peasant, but the hardened adventurer can be seen as knowing how to mitigate that sort of fall.

The 200' fall kills them both barring one of the aforementioned "miracle" landings.

Again, this sounds like a complaint for how hp damage for falling is calculated more than of the hp system. "Sure, I buy that somebody could survive a 20' fall with enough training, but NOBODY should survive a 200' fall" just means you object to how much damage that 200' fall does.

When you can identify your scale of "whether somebody should have a chance of surviving," you can construct a better damage-from-falling formula to match it.

An example might be an exponential formula, such that as distance increases damage increases faster and faster to the point that it's practically a wall-to-infinite-damage.

[Arbane]

"You've scraped off some of his scales, and left numerous cuts. They don't appear life-threatening, but the great beast is slower, and you're finding your hits are getting surer."

I don't see the problem.


Aside from the problem that it's still hitting just as hard and quickly as at full HP.... (I've played games with Death Spiral mechanics - they work OK.)

[Segev]

Aside from the problem that it's still hitting just as hard and quickly as at full HP.... (I've played games with Death Spiral mechanics - they work OK.)

Granted, the "death spiral" is only reflected in the fact that it's running out of means of making sure that you don't jab that spear into a fatal location, but it's there.

If you really want to explain it, it could be justified by the notion that people keep pushing to do more damage despite being wounded or tired as they get more desperate, and their defenses are what tends to suffer. But yes, it's an abstraction and it's not perfect. It's just nowhere near as bad as people who insist on pretending it represents something it does not try to insist it is.

[ace rooster]

The biggest problem with regarding HP as luck/skill/whatever is not that it doesn't make sense; it is that it inexplicably doesn't always apply. HPs are not a defence against the bear grabbing you. They will slow down it's ripping you apart, but the lucky/skillful/whatever option would surely be not to let it grab you at all. When a level 5(?) wizard charges at you with a glowing hand, why do lots of HP not let you prevent them casting shivering touch on you? What about dimensional anchor, as a core example?

These effects shut down a character pretty hard, so surely it would be an idea to not let them hit you, even if you have to spend some luck/skill/whatever. You know that a glancing blow is as bad as a solid hit, so why do you let it happen?


With regard to falling damage, I have to say that I generally find it on the high side. Again, I am not concerned with realism here. The falling damage in exalted in particular I regarded as ridiculous, due to it being the most antclimactic ways for an unhurt and full resource solar to die possible. You can be in a airship that is entirely vapourised around you, and be fine, but the fall will kill you :smallconfused:.

If might be realistic to have high falling damage, but heros don't care about realistic, so the game shouldn't.

Oh, and elephants survive 1000' falls reliably.


E6 never got it's own monsters designed, which could solve some of the issues in that regard. I don't think it can be called ridiculous, given that the MM was never written with E6 in mind. I've thought about running an E6 homebrew where 3HD was standard for creatures, and 4HD+ were reserved for heroic versions (or powerful things like outsiders). The dragon might have maximised D12 HD and huge con, but it would still only have 6HD. An elephant would have 3HD, high con, and natural armour.

[Segev]

No, hp won't stop the bear from grabbing you. Neither will it stop the poisoned arrow from drawing your blood (and injecting its toxin). Hp stop the bear's grab from immediately crushing the life from you, just as they stop the poisoned arrow from piercing your brain through an eye socket.

Hit points are your last ditch defense of your tenuous connection to the land of the living. They're not your defense against inconvenient bindings.

[Kami2awa]

...I've never heard of this rule, in 2e or any other edition. I'm gonna call citation needed on this one.

I second that; 2e was weirdly short on general instant-death rules (for all the instant-death traps and monster special attacks it had).

[ace rooster]

No, hp won't stop the bear from grabbing you. Neither will it stop the poisoned arrow from drawing your blood (and injecting its toxin). Hp stop the bear's grab from immediately crushing the life from you, just as they stop the poisoned arrow from piercing your brain through an eye socket.

Hit points are your last ditch defense of your tenuous connection to the land of the living. They're not your defense against inconvenient bindings.

So where does the "I use my years of combat experience to avoid letting the wizard touch me", fit in then? AC doesn't fit, because it doesn't scale. ie the years of combat experience mean nothing. HP doesn't fit, because it simply doesn't help.

"Inconvenient" bindings are often game over in difficult encounters, so it is important that you have some defense against them (from a game design perspective).

[Segev]

So where does the "I use my years of combat experience to avoid letting the wizard touch me", fit in then? AC doesn't fit, because it doesn't scale. ie the years of combat experience mean nothing. HP doesn't fit, because it simply doesn't help.You mean for a touch spell? If the spell does hp damage, then you used your combat skill (or whatever) to make sure he hit an area of less vital importance. He burned your forearm rather than your face. If it's not doing hp damage, then the question is moot anyway.

Remember, it's not "I didn't get hit." It's "The hit didn't land in a place or manner that was as bad as it could have been if I wasn't this good/lucky/on top of my game."


"Inconvenient" bindings are often game over in difficult encounters, so it is important that you have some defense against them (from a game design perspective).You do. They invoke different rules than hp. Unless the "game over" part is them using the fact that you're bound to hammer at your hp until your hp go away, in which case the hp represent just how hard you make it for them to do so. (And coup de grace rules are there precisely to close the corner case where you can't slit a fighter's throat with a knife without stabbing him a few dozen times first.)

[Max_Killjoy]

So where does the "I use my years of combat experience to avoid letting the wizard touch me", fit in then? AC doesn't fit, because it doesn't scale. ie the years of combat experience mean nothing. HP doesn't fit, because it simply doesn't help.

"Inconvenient" bindings are often game over in difficult encounters, so it is important that you have some defense against them (from a game design perspective).

Interesting to watch the contortions and gymnastics the defenders of the system come up with to cover for these conundrums, isn't it?

[Arbane]

Interesting to watch the contortions and gymnastics the defenders of the system come up with to cover for these conundrums, isn't it?

If only they had a better Logic AC. :smallamused:

[Segev]

Interesting to watch the contortions and gymnastics the defenders of the system come up with to cover for these conundrums, isn't it?


If only they had a better Logic AC. :smallamused:

And once again, we see Max_Killjoy resorting to dismissive ad hominem rather than addressing any points. I know he can't read mine, as he has me on ignore, but he's already effectively conceded by declaring my arguments bad on the grounds that he doesn't like them, rather than actually finding fault. (He got particularly prickly when I called his objections out as being based on verisimilitude, and he claimed he'd never used that as a justification...despite his dismissal and his every argument hinging on the underlying implication that realism is what he was after and not getting.)


And my logic is quite sound, thank you. Pretending otherwise with snide comments about not being able to dodge yours is rather insulting, especially when I've met yours with polite and reasoned discussion and you're resorting to "haha you aren't logical" rather than actually replying.

[Jormengand]

I prefer to think of hit points as "Bob the 1st-level commoner has been stabbed in the arm with a dagger for 3 damage, causing a minor wound*. He isn't experienced in combat, and so even the essentially-trivial wound makes him pass out. Jane the 1st-level expert has been stabbed in the arm with a dagger for 3 damage, causing an identical minor wound. She is slightly better at handling injuries (for whatever reason that experts have a higher HD) but is still staggered by the wound. She can't take a swing at something without inflicting whatever constitutes another 1 point of damage on herself and passing out. Mycah the 20th-level paladin has been stabbed in the arm with a dagger for 3 damage, causing an identical minor wound. Mycah is used to this kind of beating, and is fine. Adrian the 20th-level barbarian has been stabbed in the arm with a dagger for 0 damage, causing no wound whatever, because Adrian has some ability to mitigate (or in this case, completely avoid) the damage from attacks, due to actual, I dunno, thick skin? Good dodging? Whatever gives barbarians DR.

Sure, this may not be what the designers intended, but it seems to work well enough. Yes, my paladin can get stabbed about sixty times with a dagger, causing essentially minor injuries each time, before keeling over. This is because by the time you are 20th level, you are equivalent not just to the best human being that has ever been, but to the best human who could even conceivably ever be. Yes, the fact that you can swim in lava for several seconds is odd, but this is because lava does weirdly little damage. Incidentally, the space rules from Nailed to the Sky do oddly accurate amounts of damage, as the average person can survive about 10-15 seconds in space, and assuming a creature with 3 hit points, there's a 13.88% chance of death in round one and 95.83% of death by round 2 [so 81.95% in round 2], meaning that the average length of time is about 13 seconds.

*Or perhaps 3 minor wounds, if the cleric spell list is to be believed.

[Knaight]

If you really want to explain it, it could be justified by the notion that people keep pushing to do more damage despite being wounded or tired as they get more desperate, and their defenses are what tends to suffer. But yes, it's an abstraction and it's not perfect. It's just nowhere near as bad as people who insist on pretending it represents something it does not try to insist it is.


Interesting to watch the contortions and gymnastics the defenders of the system come up with to cover for these conundrums, isn't it?


And once again, we see Max_Killjoy resorting to dismissive ad hominem rather than addressing any points. I know he can't read mine, as he has me on ignore, but he's already effectively conceded by declaring my arguments bad on the grounds that he doesn't like them, rather than actually finding fault. (He got particularly prickly when I called his objections out as being based on verisimilitude, and he claimed he'd never used that as a justification...despite his dismissal and his every argument hinging on the underlying implication that realism is what he was after and not getting.)

And my logic is quite sound, thank you. Pretending otherwise with snide comments about not being able to dodge yours is rather insulting, especially when I've met yours with polite and reasoned discussion and you're resorting to "haha you aren't logical" rather than actually replying.

Remember: The detractors of the HP system are insisting on pretending that it's something other than it is to criticize it. The defenders of the system are resorting to contortions and gymnastics to protect it. Pointing out the first of these is being polite and reasoned, pointing out the second is resorting to dismissive ad hominem. Because that's how this works, somehow.

[kyoryu]

My HP defense: It works more often than it doesn't, it's quick, and generally makes for fun gameplay.

I'm not going to claim it is 100% consistent with anything. It's not.

[Max_Killjoy]

Remember: The detractors of the HP system are insisting on pretending that it's something other than it is to criticize it. The defenders of the system are resorting to contortions and gymnastics to protect it. Pointing out the first of these is being polite and reasoned, pointing out the second is resorting to dismissive ad hominem. Because that's how this works, somehow.


I have no quarrel with someone who might say, for instance, "The D&D HP system doesn't model anything at all. It's entirely an abstract game mechanic, an open-ended "cinematic toughness", and nothing more." -- I don't like the system, and that person does, and we can disagree as a matter of differing tastes.


I do however have a quarrel with the ongoing attempts to claim that said system is actually a functional map/model of anything at all, and there's a massive, blatant, laugh-out-loud-funny irony in the comment (the one you quoted) about "pretending it's something it's not".


If it's resistance to damage, then what is the armor portion of AC, and what's a fortitude save, and what's DR? If it's evasion of damage, then what is the dexterity portion of AC, and what's a reflex save? For some reason, there seems to be no way to pin this down, and the answer keeps changing depending on the situation presented, and when the contradictions of that answer are brought up, it changes. Again.

[Segev]

Remember: The detractors of the HP system are insisting on pretending that it's something other than it is to criticize it. The defenders of the system are resorting to contortions and gymnastics to protect it. Pointing out the first of these is being polite and reasoned, pointing out the second is resorting to dismissive ad hominem. Because that's how this works, somehow.

Actually, yes. I'll go ahead and stand by that. I was going to do a bit of a mea culpa, but then I thought about it more.

The "contortions and gymnastics" dismissal is an attempt to assert that hit points really, truly, honestly, and unequivocally are just the meat of the body, and that any claim to the contrary and any defense of a contrary claim is silly, illogical lying and/or intellectually dishonest.

Meanwhile, since hit points are stated to be what the "defenders" of them say they are, it does require pretense to claim that they're "just meat."

So, no, it's not dismissive to say they're pretending hit points are other than what they are claimed to be. It's stating a fact: they're pretending hit points are the straw man they want them to be.

It is dismissive to accuse people of "contortions and gymnastics" when all we're doing is addressing the objections to hit points representing what the rules say they represent.


"How can that possibly be? That doesn't make sense!"
"Sure it does. Here's how you can think about it."
"It's so CUTE that you engage in such contortions because you're illogical for not agreeing with me."
"You do realize that asserting your conclusion as premise isn't actually logic, and is instead pretending that you're right despite what's out there, right?"
"How DARE you resort to ad hominem by pointing out my logical fallacy and not accepting my own dismissive attack as the last word!"

[Segev]

I have no quarrel with someone who might say, for instance, "The D&D HP system doesn't model anything at all. It's entirely an abstract game mechanic, an open-ended "cinematic toughness", and nothing more." -- I don't like the system, and that person does, and we can disagree as a matter of differing tastes.


I do however have a quarrel with the ongoing attempts to claim that said system is actually a functional map/model of anything at all, and there's a massive, blatant, laugh-out-loud-funny irony in the comment (the one you quoted) about "pretending it's something it's not".

You don't have to like it. But you don't get to claim that it is what you want to claim it is and then mock people for disagreeing on the sole basis that you don't like it. Which is all you've done.

The "contortions and gymnastics" you keep deriding are not all that contorted. "I don't like it" doesn't make it illogical. When you have to resort to pointing, laughing, and insulting people for making an argument rather than actually addressing the argument, you've pretty much conceded that you don't have a rebuttal.

"Of COURSE the Earth is flat. I can see it."
"Well, here's the evidence that it's round, from Magellan's expedition to the proofs done by Greek scholars I antiquity."
"It's so amusing to watch you engage in such contortions and gymnastics to support your obviously false belief that the Earth is round."

[Knaight]

Meanwhile, since hit points are stated to be what the "defenders" of them say they are, it does require pretense to claim that they're "just meat."

It requires pretense either way. The just meat explanation makes a lot more sense with how the mechanics actually behave, but contradicts the explanation. The luck/skill/divine favor/will to fight/whatever better fits the explanation, but is a poor fit to the mechanics.

[Quertus]

So where does the "I use my years of combat experience to avoid letting the wizard touch me", fit in then? AC doesn't fit, because it doesn't scale. ie the years of combat experience mean nothing. HP doesn't fit, because it simply doesn't help..

I got this one. In an episode of Naruro, one of the characters used his finely honed combat skills to dodge an attack... only to discover that he was affected anyway, because the opponent's "touch spell" brushing his hair still triggered the full effect.

So, correct, HP don't help, because, like the captain of the Titanic, all your training and experience is inapplicable.


Remember: The detractors of the HP system are insisting on pretending that it's something other than it is to criticize it. The defenders of the system are resorting to contortions and gymnastics to protect it. Pointing out the first of these is being polite and reasoned, pointing out the second is resorting to dismissive ad hominem. Because that's how this works, somehow.

If you attack... a horrible politician... claiming that they are a Martian... no matter how horrible they are, that is still (presumedly) a groundless attack.

I can conceptualize HP just fine in most circumstances; others not being able to do so may make them unintuitive, but that does not make them wrong. Similarly, I have a difficult time conceptualizing healing meat + stamina + luck + etc etc, but that doesn't make that not a valid explanation of D&D healing magic. Being unable to understand gravity does not make it any less real. Gravity being complicated does not make those who understands and explain it somehow wrong.

Now, yes, HP are an approximation and oversimplification of reality, and I subsequently expect them to break down somewhere, but where that somehow is certainly isn't as soon as some seem to believe.


I have no quarrel with someone who might say, for instance, "The D&D HP system doesn't model anything at all. It's entirely an abstract game mechanic, an open-ended "cinematic toughness", and nothing more." -- I don't like the system, and that person does, and we can disagree as a matter of differing tastes.


I do however have a quarrel with the ongoing attempts to claim that said system is actually a functional map/model of anything at all, and there's a massive, blatant, laugh-out-loud-funny irony in the comment (the one you quoted) about "pretending it's something it's not".




See above. And I'm not even sure the way I conceptualize HP is unequivocally "correct".

Also, I'm inconsistent, like all human beings. I have no problem with HP as an abstraction to simplify combat mechanics away from how complex reality truly is; however, attempt to over-simplify the role-playing aspects of a character, and I'll scream bloody murder.

But, at least, when I'm attacking various RP mechanics, I try to provide much more concrete examples of exactly why and how they have failed me for the last time.

[Kurald Galain]

Magical healing does more than close wounds. It relieves fatigue and combat-induced stress, restores adrenaline-drained reserves, and if there is an exhaustible supply of "luck," it also replenishes that.

Please come back once the spell is called Cure Light Luck (and Remove Light Combat-Induced Stress Even Though That Wasn't Mind-Affecting, Honest).

[Mordar]

I have no quarrel with someone who might say, for instance, "The D&D HP system doesn't model anything at all. It's entirely an abstract game mechanic, an open-ended "cinematic toughness", and nothing more." -- I don't like the system, and that person does, and we can disagree as a matter of differing tastes.


I do however have a quarrel with the ongoing attempts to claim that said system is actually a functional map/model of anything at all, and there's a massive, blatant, laugh-out-loud-funny irony in the comment (the one you quoted) about "pretending it's something it's not".


If it's resistance to damage, then what is the armor portion of AC, and what's a fortitude save, and what's DR? If it's evasion of damage, then what is the dexterity portion of AC, and what's a reflex save? For some reason, there seems to be no way to pin this down, and the answer keeps changing depending on the situation presented, and when the contradictions of that answer are brought up, it changes. Again.

You know how there are prediction equations that combine an array of independent variables to put forth an estimate or prediction of the dependent variable? Like say, disease mortality or morbidity. Some of the IVs might be socioeconomic status, race, age, region...would you ask how each of those contribute to risk of exposure versus gestation versus infection versus immune response efficacy, and if the answer were not a one-to-one match up would you dismiss the whole of the equation?

Or would you accept that each of the IVs could be tied to each of those elements that play into disease morbidity?

HP, AC and Saves could be said to model character survivability. That does not require each element of the model to be tied in a one-to-one fashion to avoiding contact, reducing damage, absorbing damage or resisting effects, or any other such elements.

- M

[Max_Killjoy]

You know how there are prediction equations that combine an array of independent variables to put forth an estimate or prediction of the dependent variable? Like say, disease mortality or morbidity. Some of the IVs might be socioeconomic status, race, age, region...would you ask how each of those contribute to risk of exposure versus gestation versus infection versus immune response efficacy, and if the answer were not a one-to-one match up would you dismiss the whole of the equation?

Or would you accept that each of the IVs could be tied to each of those elements that play into disease morbidity?

HP, AC and Saves could be said to model character survivability. That does not require each element of the model to be tied in a one-to-one fashion to avoiding contact, reducing damage, absorbing damage or resisting effects, or any other such elements.

- M

I'm not trying to model the disease risk and progression through a population -- I'm looking for functional, enjoyable game mechanics that map well enough to the setting and atmosphere of plausible game worlds to provide sufficient verisimilitude and yet not dominate the gaming session. When something new comes up, the (or a good) answer on how to handle it should derive naturally from the rules.

Rules that are muddled and overlapping and require reference to specifics on a case-by-case-by-case basis every time something comes up, don't do that at all, at least not for me.

[RazorChain]

You know how there are prediction equations that combine an array of independent variables to put forth an estimate or prediction of the dependent variable? Like say, disease mortality or morbidity. Some of the IVs might be socioeconomic status, race, age, region...would you ask how each of those contribute to risk of exposure versus gestation versus infection versus immune response efficacy, and if the answer were not a one-to-one match up would you dismiss the whole of the equation?

Or would you accept that each of the IVs could be tied to each of those elements that play into disease morbidity?

HP, AC and Saves could be said to model character survivability. That does not require each element of the model to be tied in a one-to-one fashion to avoiding contact, reducing damage, absorbing damage or resisting effects, or any other such elements.

- M

I'm not either trying to model the disease risk and progression through a population, I'm mostly just arguing for the arguments sake.

But if my high level fighter is on a nudist beach and gets shot in the back by three crossbows without noticing them. He must have stumbled on a clam and only got grazed? Or was he so well hung and the assailants were females and lost their concentration? Or did they hit him in the ass because they were staring at it?

My high level fighter doesn't do ice baths...he does lava baths, he trust that luck will save him. Remember kids, it's good for the immune system.

When that wizard used vampiric touch on my fighter he wasn't draining my life force...he was draining my mojo!

My fighter can gulp down deadly poisons with the best of them because....of hmmm....skill in resisting poisons. In fact my fighter doesn't like that aspect of his bloated HP pool because technically alcohol is poison so he needs to drink barrels of it to get drunk.

[2D8HP]

I'm looking for functional, enjoyable game mechanics that map well enough to the setting and atmosphere of plausible game worlds to provide sufficient verisimilitude and yet not dominate the gaming session. When something new comes up, the (or a good) answer on how to handle it should derive naturally from the rules.

Rules that are muddled and overlapping and require reference to specifics on a case-by-case-by-case basis every time something comes up, don't do that at all, at least not for me.Yeah 1970's D&D was a hodgepodge of "good enough rules now are better than a perfect rules later", that were put together on the fly. It's a mess, but I loved it because it had some great advantages:

1) It was fun.
2) I found other people who played it.
3) I memorized the rules back when I had a young and agile mind.

I still remember a lot of it (which I often remember instead of the game I'm actually trying to play).

Fortunately when I need to GM settings that D&D is inappropriate for I have an alternate truly multi-setting RPG rules system I made up in the 1980's based on a careful reading of the 1975 Greyhawk supplement for D&D, the 1978 Runequest rules, and the 1981 Call of Cthullu rules, which I now name "Gut check the RPG", and I will share with you:

1) GM describes a scene.
2) Player says an action that their PC attempts.
3) GM decides if the PC has no chance of success, no chance of failure, or a partial chance of success.
4) If a partial chance of success, GM makes up on the spot a percentage chance of success.
5) Player rolls D100 (two 0-9 twenty-siders back then).
6) If the player rolls under the made up number their PC succeeds in attempting the task, if over the PC fails.
7) GM narrates the immediate consequences until it's time to again ask, "what do you do".
8) Repeat.

It seemed to work.

Honestly, these days trying to learn rules other than character creation is a chore for me, and I mostly read RPG's for setting "fluff".
I may already own a RPG with a brilliant rules system that I would love, but I am unlikely to ever find out.

[Mordar]

I'm not trying to model the disease risk and progression through a population -- I'm looking for functional, enjoyable game mechanics that map well enough to the setting and atmosphere of plausible game worlds to provide sufficient verisimilitude and yet not dominate the gaming session. When something new comes up, the (or a good) answer on how to handle it should derive naturally from the rules.

Rules that are muddled and overlapping and require reference to specifics on a case-by-case-by-case basis every time something comes up, don't do that at all, at least not for me.


I'm not either trying to model the disease risk and progression through a population, I'm mostly just arguing for the arguments sake.

But if my high level fighter is on a nudist beach and gets shot in the back by three crossbows without noticing them. He must have stumbled on a clam and only got grazed? Or was he so well hung and the assailants were females and lost their concentration? Or did they hit him in the ass because they were staring at it?

My high level fighter doesn't do ice baths...he does lava baths, he trust that luck will save him. Remember kids, it's good for the immune system.

When that wizard used vampiric touch on my fighter he wasn't draining my life force...he was draining my mojo!

My fighter can gulp down deadly poisons with the best of them because....of hmmm....skill in resisting poisons. In fact my fighter doesn't like that aspect of his bloated HP pool because technically alcohol is poison so he needs to drink barrels of it to get drunk.

The disease model was used as example to show that a model can be multivariate without having one-to-one ties to a given element of the DV and valuable without being perfect, that's all.

I appreciate both your answers and of course I recognize that at the extreme ends (and sometimes not so extreme ends) the model fails. Sure, survivability can include some hero-luck (if that's really what you choose/want to call it)...and if draining life force isn't draining mojo I'm not sure what it is...but there really isn't an answer for the more ridiculous examples like the lava bath or the 200' falls, other than saying the characters that can indeed survive those without magic are extremely few and far between.

Now the poisons...well, Wesley managed to build resistance to poison by taking a few levels of Dread Pirate...so I'm thinking our Knight of the Realm might well have developed a similarly hardy constitution :smallwink:

- M

[Arbane]

My HP defense: It works more often than it doesn't, it's quick, and generally makes for fun gameplay.

I'm not going to claim it is 100% consistent with anything. It's not.

That works fine. The problem comes when people try to rationalize HP as an actual Thing That Exists in the game world. Then it ends up in this thread...

(And I think the fact that the HP Plot Armor can't be used to defend against save-or-cry spells is one of the many things that screws over the peasantry when compared to their spellcasting overlords.)

[georgie_leech]

That works fine. The problem comes when people try to rationalize HP as an actual Thing That Exists in the game world. Then it ends up in this thread...

(And I think the fact that the HP Plot Armor can't be used to defend against save-or-cry spells is one of the many things that screws over the peasantry when compared to their spellcasting overlords.)

Hm. I wonder what kind of effect it could have on, say, Fighters, if they had an ability that let them "spend" HP to avoid/end debilitating conditions like paralysis, blinding, or even death?

[Knaight]

The disease model was used as example to show that a model can be multivariate without having one-to-one ties to a given element of the DV and valuable without being perfect, that's all.

A multivariate model can also break down all the time and produce bizarre results it shouldn't, which could be easily avoided by making a simpler model that uses better variables.

[kyoryu]

A multivariate model can also break down all the time and produce bizarre results it shouldn't, which could be easily avoided by making a simpler model that uses better variables.

"Do not multiply entities unnecessarily"

[Mordar]

A multivariate model can also break down all the time and produce bizarre results it shouldn't, which could be easily avoided by making a simpler model that uses better variables.

Correction to my post: I shouldn't have said multivariate...that was incorrect. And I know better. I should have said that the model could have multiple IVs.

Response here: Assuming the model displays significance, multiple IVs provided a better picture in the majority of cases than a single IV model. Your comment seems to say don't use multiple variables because that equation breaks down, so avoid that by using a simple (simpler = fewer IVs?) model with better variableS. So don't use multiple variables, instead use fewer multiple variables?

Of course you need proper variables/inputs...so are you suggesting that AC, HP and Saves aren't the proper variables, or saying that there should just be a single element that is used to "model" the ability to survive? What is your preferred system for handling the mix of things that can hurt/deleteriously impact a character?

I think there is kind of neat idea there...and I'm sure someone has come up with it somewhere else...but combining the defensive things into a single value/resource (call it Life Score) that represents damage absorption, damage mitigation, damage avoidance, disadvantageous status resistance and so forth and giving the player greater control on the use of that resource ("I'll use 7 Life Score to not become blinded by the flash grenade!") presents an interesting idea.

- M

[Bohandas]

I think you mean the sins of Reality.

Cracked: 6 Soldiers Who Survived $#!% That Would Kill a Terminator (http://www.cracked.com/article_18429_6-soldiers-who-survived-****-that-would-kill-terminator.html)

Cracked again: 5 Insane Falls You Won't Believe People Survived (http://www.cracked.com/article_19996_5-insane-falls-you-wont-believe-people-survived.html)

Oh, another fun thing: With D&D hitpoints, but without magic, feats, or other special stuff, it's impossible to have someone stagger up to you wounded, gasp out a few words, and die.
This actually suggests a tweak to me that could restore realism. What if for every so many hp lost you had to save or hurt a body part and take a penalty. These guys all got their arms and legs and eyes messed up.

EDIT:
See DMG pg 27, "DAMAGE TO SPECIFIC AREAS" for what kind of penalties these would impart

[Jormengand]

Hm. I wonder what kind of effect it could have on, say, Fighters, if they had an ability that let them "spend" HP to avoid/end debilitating conditions like paralysis, blinding, or even death?

You mean like the Shrug Off ability (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?428437-quot-Stand-back-boy-and-let-me-show-you-war!-quot-(3-5-class-PEACH)) I give most of my mundanes?

[Quertus]

I'm looking for functional, enjoyable game mechanics that map well enough to the setting and atmosphere of plausible game worlds to provide sufficient verisimilitude and yet not dominate the gaming session. When something new comes up, the (or a good) answer on how to handle it should derive naturally from the rules.

Rules that are muddled and overlapping and require reference to specifics on a case-by-case-by-case basis every time something comes up, don't do that at all, at least not for me.

Ah, so you're looking for ease of mapping. "Readability" is one of my highest benchmarks for code, so I approve.

Yes, D&D doesn't get top ratings in this regard. Making you faster... improves what? Making you luckier... improves what?

But

Would you really enjoy a system that correctly modeled my padded weapon example, complete with physical and mental stamina, speed, reach, skill, specific maneuvers known, ability to read body language, ability to translate that to maneuvers known, etc etc?


My fighter can gulp down deadly poisons with the best of them because....of hmmm....skill in resisting poisons. In fact my fighter doesn't like that aspect of his bloated HP pool because technically alcohol is poison so he needs to drink barrels of it to get drunk.

AFAIK, that's not HP that keep the fighter from getting drunk.

[Max_Killjoy]

Ah, so you're looking for ease of mapping. "Readability" is one of my highest benchmarks for code, so I approve.

Yes, D&D doesn't get top ratings in this regard. Making you faster... improves what? Making you luckier... improves what?


Exactly. Exactly.


(E: the "map" terminology, for me, comes from my statement that the game system is the map, the setting and characters and atmosphere even story are the actual territory. )




But

Would you really enjoy a system that correctly modeled my padded weapon example, complete with physical and mental stamina, speed, reach, skill, specific maneuvers known, ability to read body language, ability to translate that to maneuvers known, etc etc?


There's a limit to what's practical, and actual gameplay to take into consideration.

[RazorChain]

Ah, so you're looking for ease of mapping. "Readability" is one of my highest benchmarks for code, so I approve.

Yes, D&D doesn't get top ratings in this regard. Making you faster... improves what? Making you luckier... improves what?


Or high Constitution makes you luckier?

[PersonMan]

That works fine. The problem comes when people try to rationalize HP as an actual Thing That Exists in the game world. Then it ends up in this thread...

I'm curious - earlier, during the beginning of the HP disagreement, I mentioned how I think of HP. Do you think that doesn't work, and if so where does it break down? At this point I'm fairly certain it works as far as the system is concerned (although some of it is odd when you get to stuff like drowning tanking your HP near-instantly).


I sometimes think of it as a mix between ability to shrug off or otherwise deal with injuries [Edit: And sheer physical toughness]. If you have 100 HP, you can be covered in massive burns and keep fighting, but when you hit 1 HP you're at your limit, so anything more that hits you causes all the damage you've taken to stop being able to function normally. It could be that a high-level fighter at 1 HP isn't a guy covered in cuts and bruises, but rather someone who barely seems alive to the untrained viewer - massive wounds covering his body, broken bones protruding from arms that are somehow still being used as if they were undamaged.

Yes, this does break with the idea of "HP isn't purely physical injury" completely, but it is a way of seeing the HP model as something other than "just HP". After enough of a beating has been applied, the character's willpower gives out and they fall, still holding on to life but in a horribly mangled state (and therefore requiring a lot more healing magic than Mr. Knocked Out By His Cat).

[Kurald Galain]

Yes, D&D doesn't get top ratings in this regard. Making you faster... improves what? Making you luckier... improves what?

It's not perfect, but it does pretty well iff you go with "HP = Health". Making you faster improves movement rate (and gives one more attack per round). Making you luckier gives a small luck bonus to your d20 rolls.

If you go with "HP = Plot Armor" then yes, it becomes a silly mess. That's why it's so funny that some people insist that this must be the only explanation.

[Max_Killjoy]

It's not perfect, but it does pretty well iff you go with "HP = Health". Making you faster improves movement rate (and gives one more attack per round). Making you luckier gives a small luck bonus to your d20 rolls.

If you go with "HP = Plot Armor" then yes, it becomes a silly mess. That's why it's so funny that some people insist that this must be the only explanation.

If HP = just Health, you get a different set of issues, such as "How does the exact identical wound that would have reduced the character to a bleeding, dying mess at level one, now barely affect the character at all at level ten?"

[The Glyphstone]

If HP = just Health, you get a different set of issues, such as "How does the exact identical wound that would have reduced the character to a bleeding, dying mess at level one, now barely affect the character at all?"

Take a few extra seconds and render damage as a fraction. The monsters' Damage Roll is 8, that translates to 66% of your first-level Con 14 Fighter's health. A monster's damage roll of 8 at level 20 is slightly more than 5% of their health.

Sure, it adds a useless math step as part of the 'describing damage' step to combat resolution, but if realism is valuable, a little bit more math won't hurt. Entire games, like GURPS, are built around having rolls/stats for every 'realistic' aspect even if it slows down actual gameplay. And it gives us an excuse to write another table, in classic Gygaxian style, with specific descriptions being tied to certain percentages of health loss.

Why isn't this in the rules already? Because the modern designers have lost the Gygaxian spirit. They don't even make you roll on the Random Harlot table anymore.

[Max_Killjoy]

Take a few extra seconds and render damage as a fraction. The monsters' Damage Roll is 8, that translates to 66% of your first-level Con 14 Fighter's health. A monster's damage roll of 8 at level 20 is slightly more than 5% of their health.

Sure, it adds a useless math step as part of the 'describing damage' step to combat resolution, but if realism is valuable, a little bit more math won't hurt. Entire games, like GURPS, are built around having rolls/stats for every 'realistic' aspect even if it slows down actual gameplay. And it gives us an excuse to write another table, in classic Gygaxian style, with specific descriptions being tied to certain percentages of health loss.

Why isn't this in the rules already? Because the modern designers have lost the Gygaxian spirit. They don't even make you roll on the Random Harlot table anymore.


That doesn't change anything at all.

The attacker made made their roll by the same margin, and the damage roll was the same. Therefore, the wound was the same.

The same wound somehow did a different "fraction of health" to the same character because... of what?

[Kurald Galain]

The attacker made made their roll by the same margin, and the damage roll was the same. Therefore, the wound was the same.

No, that does not follow. That's just your assumption.

And it's an assumption that leads to all kinds of ridiculous outcomes, which is why I suggest making a different assumption.

[ace rooster]

If HP = just Health, you get a different set of issues, such as "How does the exact identical wound that would have reduced the character to a bleeding, dying mess at level one, now barely affect the character at all at level ten?"

Cause he is just that heroic. :smallbiggrin:

I'm reminded of the film Last Action Hero, where Arnie plays a film character brought to reality. He survives a kill shot by being taken back into the film, where the doctor looks at the injury and says something like "Are you joking, I wouldn't even call this a flesh wound".

[Bohandas]

I sometimes think of it as a mix between ability to shrug off or otherwise deal with injuries. If you have 100 HP, you can be covered in massive burns and keep fighting, but when you hit 1 HP you're at your limit, so anything more that hits you causes all the damage you've taken to stop being able to function normally. It could be that a high-level fighter at 1 HP isn't a guy covered in cuts and bruises, but rather someone who barely seems alive to the untrained viewer - massive wounds covering his body, broken bones protruding from arms that are somehow still being used as if they were undamaged.

Yes, this does break with the idea of "HP isn't purely physical injury" completely, but it is a way of seeing the HP model as something other than "just HP". After enough of a beating has been applied, the character's willpower gives out and they fall, still holding on to life but in a horribly mangled state (and therefore requiring a lot more healing magic than Mr. Knocked Out By His Cat).

That sounds like a good explanation.

It does come off a little bit like the Black Knight though. "That's just a flesh wound (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhRUe-gz690#t=02m06s)"

[Max_Killjoy]

No, that does not follow. That's just your assumption.

And it's an assumption that leads to all kinds of ridiculous outcomes, which is why I suggest making a different assumption.


Zero assumptions.

All variances other than the target character's HP have been accounted for.


Ridiculous outcomes occur if two mechanically identical hits do not represent equivalent wounds.


There's just no way to have ever-increasing hit points without something breaking.

[Lacuna Caster]

Take a few extra seconds and render damage as a fraction. The monsters' Damage Roll is 8, that translates to 66% of your first-level Con 14 Fighter's health. A monster's damage roll of 8 at level 20 is slightly more than 5% of their health.
I've been outta the loop, so maybe I missed this earlier, but how does this explain the immersion-in-lava rule and tough-guys-are-harder-to-heal effect?

Guys, why do we have to make this complicated? What exactly is wrong with level-20 adventurers being the Justice League in wands and chainmail?

[Kurald Galain]

Guys, why do we have to make this complicated? What exactly is wrong with level-20 adventurers being the Justice League in wands and chainmail?

Nothing. Except that some people insist they can be killed by a single blow, but they never take blows ever because they're just that good (except when the blow is on fire or poisoned or a large number of other exceptions...) :smallbiggrin:

[Knaight]

Nothing. Except that some people insist they can be killed by a single blow, but they never take blows ever because they're just that good (except when the blow is on fire or poisoned or a large number of other exceptions...) :smallbiggrin:

Exactly. Medieval superheroes who genuinely do take ridiculous wounds and basically ignore them are modeled comparatively well.

[Max_Killjoy]

Exactly. Medieval superheroes who genuinely do take ridiculous wounds and basically ignore them are modeled comparatively well.


Which would be fine, if the game and its proponents were frank and honest about what the system does well.

Instead, it's too often been "Running a fantasy game of any kind? Use D&D/d20!"

[soldersbushwack]

Guys please stop crapping up the thread. This thread isn't about pushing your views on whether or not D&D accurately models reality well. If you want a more accurate system just play GURPS or something.

[Khedrac]

Max_Killjoy,
I tried pointing out some way back (as have others) that just because rules are ridiculous they are not necessarily bad. Also that D&D is liked by enough people that while it may be "bad" for you it is not "objectively bad".
You could have accepted this and ignored all the other people that carried on arguing a point that in general is a matter of opinion and not subject to argument.

You didn't stop though - you came out with this:

Zero assumptions.

All variances other than the target character's HP have been accounted for.

Ridiculous outcomes occur if two mechanically identical hits do not represent equivalent wounds.

There's just no way to have ever-increasing hit points without something breaking.
You have now stated that if the rolled result is the same the would must be the same.
Oh dear.
This means that for D&D, a dagger can only cause 4 possible non-critical wounds when wielded by an averag person.
At first glance that seems to suggest your assertion that D&D is "objectively bad" (and not just ridiculous).

Perhaps, but every single other role-playing game that uses a dice roll to determine weapon damage has the same problem - there has to be a discrete number of possible outcome rolls. This number of outcomes is far far smaller than the number of possible different results from attacking someone with a knife, ignoring fatal strikes (the criticals).
(I suspect all RPGs that use dice, and most of the ones that don't suffer from the same problem, but I don't know enough about them all to be sure.)

By your critera every role-playing game is bad. Fine - please get out of the RPG sub-forums of this site because clearly you think them all "objectively bad".

If you don't think this stop trying to argue that something that is demonstrably subjectively bad is objectively bad. It isn't objectively bad because far too many people like playing it for that to be the case. It is subjectively bad because it has major problems for lots of people.
You have now demonstrated that your arguments are specious because you simply don't want to accept that your opinion is just your opinion and other people can disagree with you.
Note: the people who expect to be able to convince you that it is a good system are equally in the wrong, but most of them have shut up and most of the posts are now people just trying to show that it is not "objectively" bad.

Yes, I know in the quoted post you did not use the term "bad" you referred to ridiculousness, but no-one has queried that for ages, they have been trying to counter your "objectively bad" assertion, therefore your post has to be in support of that part of your position. If not, I apologise for misunderstanding you, but you could have clearly stated that you no longer stand by "objectively bad".

PS - thank-you for leading me to another ridiculous aspect of D&D - that there are only 4 different results from a knife stab.

[Lacuna Caster]

Instead, it's too often been "Running a fantasy game of any kind? Use D&D/d20!"
Max, maybe it has, but unless someone in this thread has specifically been making that claim, I don't think bringing it up again is likely to promote constructive discussion.

[Max_Killjoy]

Max_Killjoy,
I tried pointing out some way back (as have others) that just because rules are ridiculous they are not necessarily bad. Also that D&D is liked by enough people that while it may be "bad" for you it is not "objectively bad".
You could have accepted this and ignored all the other people that carried on arguing a point that in general is a matter of opinion and not subject to argument.

You didn't stop though - you came out with this:

You have now stated that if the rolled result is the same the would must be the same.
Oh dear.
This means that for D&D, a dagger can only cause 4 possible non-critical wounds when wielded by an averag person.
At first glance that seems to suggest your assertion that D&D is "objectively bad" (and not just ridiculous).

Perhaps, but every single other role-playing game that uses a dice roll to determine weapon damage has the same problem - there has to be a discrete number of possible outcome rolls. This number of outcomes is far far smaller than the number of possible different results from attacking someone with a knife, ignoring fatal strikes (the criticals).
(I suspect all RPGs that use dice, and most of the ones that don't suffer from the same problem, but I don't know enough about them all to be sure.)

By your critera every role-playing game is bad. Fine - please get out of the RPG sub-forums of this site because clearly you think them all "objectively bad".

If you don't think this stop trying to argue that something that is demonstrably subjectively bad is objectively bad. It isn't objectively bad because far too many people like playing it for that to be the case. It is subjectively bad because it has major problems for lots of people.
You have now demonstrated that your arguments are specious because you simply don't want to accept that your opinion is just your opinion and other people can disagree with you.
Note: the people who expect to be able to convince you that it is a good system are equally in the wrong, but most of them have shut up and most of the posts are now people just trying to show that it is not "objectively" bad.

Yes, I know in the quoted post you did not use the term "bad" you referred to ridiculousness, but no-one has queried that for ages, they have been trying to counter your "objectively bad" assertion, therefore your post has to be in support of that part of your position. If not, I apologise for misunderstanding you, but you could have clearly stated that you no longer stand by "objectively bad".



Non-sequitur much?

There is no way to get from what I posted to where you are here, without deliberately just making things up -- and that's not even getting into your blatant misrepresentation of what I actually said.


Again: "Ridiculous outcomes occur if two mechanically identical hits do not represent equivalent wounds." said in the context of hit point bloat making two otherwise mechanically identical hits map to entirely different events based on nothing more than how big that fat pile of HP is for the particular character suffering the hit.

To make it utterly clear, this has nothing -- NOTHING -- to do with the number or variation of different results that can occur on the damage roll. Whether or not damage is even determined by a roll isn't even material to the point. The point is that the hit point bloat of something like D&D causes results either in higher-level characters surviving without pause absolutely identical hits that would mortally injure their lower-level counterparts (or selves)... or in two attacks that are absolutely identical in all ways, start to finish, modelling/mapping two absurdly different events based on how big that pile of hit points is. Both targets can even have all the same Attributes and AC. Same margin of success, same damage outcome, etc... models/maps a masterful swordstroke that bypasses the target's own weapon and shield, finds a gap in the armor, and plunges home... or a mere fumbling scratch.

[quinron]

Take a few extra seconds and render damage as a fraction. The monsters' Damage Roll is 8, that translates to 66% of your first-level Con 14 Fighter's health. A monster's damage roll of 8 at level 20 is slightly more than 5% of their health.

If you combine this concept with the usual explanation - that hit points represent not just physical damage, but also exhaustion and will to keep fighting - it makes a lot of sense. Increased hit points don't just represent the ability to withstand more damage, they represent a degree of understanding of combat that allows you to mitigate damage.

For example, that same fighter: 8 points of damage at first level represents them taking a significant amount of physical damage. At level 5 (assuming 6 + 2 hp per hit die) that hit takes away ~18% of their health - they're taking the same hit, but they've learned better how to mitigate the damage by blocking, rolling with the blow, or something similar. When dealing with magic and saving throws, we can say that they're more effectively covering exposed body parts, throwing themselves out of the way more quickly, etc.


Again: "Ridiculous outcomes occur if two mechanically identical hits do not represent equivalent wounds." said in the context of hit point bloat making two otherwise mechanically identical hits map to entirely different events based on nothing more than how big that fat pile of HP is for the particular character suffering the hit.

As you said earlier, the attacker hits equally as accurately (attack) and with the same degree of either strength or precision (damage) - the difference is that when faced with the same circumstance, the character knows better how to handle being attacked. It can take a moment of thinking to make this suit certain damage types/sources, but I think it's a fairly elegant explanation.

[Batou1976]

Way back in '90 when I first got into RPing, I didn't really have any issue with HP- I was already familiar with the concept from having played games like Dragon Warrior and Final Fantasy. Now that I'm 40 and have a bit more experience with the way the world works (including fighting), I do find it falls short in a few ways.

I get how at first glance, it would seem like two different sword cuts, both thrown with the exact same amount of force (in game terms, both doing, say, 12hp of damage) should each have the exact same effect upon the target. Against a static target, they very well might. However, against an actively resisting combatant they likely won't hit the exact same spot at the exact same angle. I think randomly rolled damage and the HP pool are meant to model such vagaries of IRL combat.
However, over several variations of basic D&D (from the 1974 pamphlets to BECMI) and 5 editions of Advanced, the game has never included a mechanism for improving your defensive capability as you leveled up- a level 1 fighter and a level 20 fighter, both wearing the same armor and with the same DEX, will have the exact same AC. Yes, HP supposedly models that.... but to me, it's wonky to mash together "ability to survive/ mitigate wounds" with "ability to defend against an attack so as not to be wounded in the first place", especially when the ever-increasing "survival capacity" HP represents grows to a point where a creature need not worry about falling into the bottom of the Grand Canyon and swimming in lava is trivial. The odds one will survive a 300' fall are long indeed... but it has happened. There've been instances of people surviving much greater falls (I guess the DM rolled 20 ones on that 20d6 :smallamused: ), but for someone to be able to survive multiple such falls in a lifetime? No. Just... No. And D&D characters are one-in-a-million individuals? Fine- but there never has and never will exist a human who can swim in lava. It's just not possible for a mortal to be that extraordinary, fantasy game or no, and for game mechanics to make that possible is asking me to hang my suspension of disbelief by the neck until it's dead (with thanks to Max for the notion).

They were on to a fine enough idea when they came up with HP, but they sent it off the rails when they engineered the implementation to allow the stat to increase more or less indefinitely, and failed to include a rule for certain-death situations (remember, there was no coup de grace in 2E).

[Max_Killjoy]

If you combine this concept with the usual explanation - that hit points represent not just physical damage, but also exhaustion and will to keep fighting - it makes a lot of sense. Increased hit points don't just represent the ability to withstand more damage, they represent a degree of understanding of combat that allows you to mitigate damage.

For example, that same fighter: 8 points of damage at first level represents them taking a significant amount of physical damage. At level 5 (assuming 6 + 2 hp per hit die) that hit takes away ~18% of their health - they're taking the same hit, but they've learned better how to mitigate the damage by blocking, rolling with the blow, or something similar. When dealing with magic and saving throws, we can say that they're more effectively covering exposed body parts, throwing themselves out of the way more quickly, etc.



As you said earlier, the attacker hits equally as accurately (attack) and with the same degree of either strength or precision (damage) - the difference is that when faced with the same circumstance, the character knows better how to handle being attacked. It can take a moment of thinking to make this suit certain damage types/sources, but I think it's a fairly elegant explanation.

Elegant? Hardly.

As discussed at length in this very thread, that makes no more sense, and causes a bunch of other ridiculous outcomes.

[Jormengand]

Guys, can we all just agree that anyone who had an opinion on this has already made their mind up and isn't going to change, and move on, or at least move the discussion into its own thread?

[Kurald Galain]

Guys, can we all just agree that anyone who had an opinion on this has already made their mind up and isn't going to change, and move on, or at least move the discussion into its own thread?

Yep. For what it's worth, we have the HP-are-wounds vs HP-are-plot-armor discussion at least once every month, just like the monks-suck vs monks-are-great debate, and of course the ever-present "my edition is better than your edition". :smallamused:

[2D8HP]

Yep. For what it's worth, we have the HP-are-wounds vs HP-are-plot-armor discussion at least once every month, just like the monks-suck vs monks-are-great debate, and of course the ever-present "my edition is better than your edition". :smallamused:There can be no end to the "Edition Wars" when they're still unrepentant heathens out there who refuse the one true game!
:wink:

Wrong thread, bro. This thread is where you are supposed to say:

Then 5e actually came out, and every person I've met in person who has played it has liked it, which made me realize a) there's definitely something wrong with these people and b) we need to set up "AD&D re-education camps" (it's for their own good, really).
I may also suggest arguments about:
Emo vs. Goth,
Chevrolet vs. Ford,
Death Metal vs. Thrash Metal, and
49ers vs Raiders as subjects of vital importance that we may argue passionately about!
:biggrin:

[Kurald Galain]

I may also suggest arguments about:
Emo vs. Goth,
Chevrolet vs. Ford,
Death Metal vs. Thrash Metal, and
49ers vs Raiders as subjects of vital importance that we may argue passionately about!
:biggrin:

How dare you! My argument is way more argumentative than your argument :smallfurious:

:smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin:

[Batou1976]

I may also suggest arguments about:
Emo vs. Goth,
Chevrolet vs. Ford,
Death Metal vs. Thrash Metal, and
49ers vs Raiders as subjects of vital importance that we may argue passionately about!
:biggrin:

Such arguments cannot possibly go anywhere, for everyone knows goth>emo, Ford>Chevy, all forms of metal are equally valid, and the Cowboys are 'Murica's Team [the rest of the NFL can suck it]. :smalltongue:

[Earthwalker]

Non-sequitur much?

[snip]

Again: "Ridiculous outcomes occur if two mechanically identical hits do not represent equivalent wounds." said in the context of hit point bloat making two otherwise mechanically identical hits map to entirely different events based on nothing more than how big that fat pile of HP is for the particular character suffering the hit.

[snip]



I have just been sat here thinking about the different systems I know.
I cant think of a single system I know where after an attack and damage roll has been generated where you always get the same result no matter who you aim for.

Like the Shadowrun and WoD. After the hit comes some dodge and soak rolls. I mean you can even take the dodge roll out and you shot just as well its just this time it seemed to be soaked better (or worse)

Fate has a dodge or counter roll to reduce your effectiveness.

Earthdawn has a class / HP based dealio going on.

Runequest has a small pool for HP but 5 points of damage to an arm, might scratch the arm, cripple the arm or chop the arm off depending on the number of HP in the arm.

I cant remember how traveller worked, that might come close.

[Max_Killjoy]

I have just been sat here thinking about the different systems I know.
I cant think of a single system I know where after an attack and damage roll has been generated where you always get the same result no matter who you aim for.

Like the Shadowrun and WoD. After the hit comes some dodge and soak rolls. I mean you can even take the dodge roll out and you shot just as well its just this time it seemed to be soaked better (or worse)

Fate has a dodge or counter roll to reduce your effectiveness.

Earthdawn has a class / HP based dealio going on.

Runequest has a small pool for HP but 5 points of damage to an arm, might scratch the arm, cripple the arm or chop the arm off depending on the number of HP in the arm.

I cant remember how traveller worked, that might come close.


How many times do I have to explain that it's two hits that are the same after everything but the size of the HP pool is taken into account? I think I mentioned "margin of success" multiple times.

[Keltest]

How many times do I have to explain that it's two hits that are the same after everything but the size of the HP pool is taken into account? I think I mentioned "margin of success" multiple times.

you keep calling it ridiculous, but so far I'm mostly seeing you trying to make the system into something its not. The fact that the crunch is identical does not mean that the fluff needs to be identical.

[Max_Killjoy]

you keep calling it ridiculous, but so far I'm mostly seeing you trying to make the system into something its not. The fact that the crunch is identical does not mean that the fluff needs to be identical.


Don't accuse me of making anything into something it's not, when you can't even be arsed to read the posts in question.

Multiple times, I've said equivalent wounds, not identical wounds.

[Earthwalker]

How many times do I have to explain that it's two hits that are the same after everything but the size of the HP pool is taken into account? I think I mentioned "margin of success" multiple times.

DnD / Earthdawn / Runequest. The two hits are identical apart from the size of the HP pool. Its the size of the pool that gives different results.

Shadowrun / Wod - The two hits are identical apart from the number of success on a soak roll. Its the successes on the soak that give a different result.

Fate - The two hits are identical apart from the number on the defence roll.

I think what I don't understand is.
You changed the HP pool that's bad.

Compared to

You changed the dice on a soak that's not bad.

Is your argument if you only change one thing in the equation everything should still work the same ?

You are changing one thing, either the size of HP pool or the success on a soak roll.

[Segev]

Guys, Max_Killjoy is determined to insist that hit points, particularly as they are present in D&D, are not only subjectively something he doesn't like, but objectively are bad mechanics, and he's going to insist that they're whatever straw man he has to invent to make his argument work, even if he has to have several different straw men to pull out to dodge illustrations of why any particular one is actually defensible.

He's trying to win an argument on the internet, not actually discuss a point with any seriousness. As evidenced by his moving goalposts and insistence that NOT accepting his straw men is "contortion" which he feels justified in sneering at rather than addressing.

You're not going to convince him, and I think even arguing against him to stop others from being misled is fruitless by now, since the arguments presented on all sides pretty well stand up for themselves at this point.

[Max_Killjoy]

DnD / Earthdawn / Runequest. The two hits are identical apart from the size of the HP pool. Its the size of the pool that gives different results.

Shadowrun / Wod - The two hits are identical apart from the number of success on a soak roll. Its the successes on the soak that give a different result.

Fate - The two hits are identical apart from the number on the defence roll.

I think what I don't understand is.
You changed the HP pool that's bad.

Compared to

You changed the dice on a soak that's not bad.

Is your argument if you only change one thing in the equation everything should still work the same ?

You are changing one thing, either the size of HP pool or the success on a soak roll.

The defense and soak rolls map/model discrete specific things, and they're typically within a confined scale. After they're applied, a certain "amount" of damage gets through. It's that damage that gets through that I'm concerned with.

When that damage that gets through in some other games is finally applied to the character's "health", it's all within a certain scale and relatively of the same magnitude.

In a game like D&D, all else being equal, from attack to defense to soak to whatever, all else being equal, there's this highly variable pool of HP that's not to the same scale across characters. A weapon hit that gets 4 damage through everything to affect the character's HP has a dramatically different effect on a character with 6 HP (66.67% of character's health) than it does on a character with 60 HP (6.67%) -- the first character takes that same hit again, and he's dying, the second character takes that same hit again, and he's still very far from dying.

So, all else being equal, are those wounds equivalent (not identical, equivalent), and the higher-HP character able to survive without complication multiple serious wounds that would leave the lower-HP dying? Is the higher-HP character some sort of superhuman, or secret undead, or whatever?

Or are the wounds not equivalent -- which means that something other than raw health/toughness is involved in HP (Another layer of luck? Another layer of evasion? Another layer of resisting?), leading to all the strange, disjointed system complications that have been painstakingly laid out in this thread?




(I was willing to drop this when it was asked if we move on, but evidently it's not enough that I find D&D's HP utterly ridiculous, I have to defend that opinion.)

[Segev]

(I was willing to drop this when it was asked if we move on, but evidently it's not enough that I find D&D's HP utterly ridiculous, I have to defend that opinion.)

You're allowed the opinion. You're not allowed to denigrate those who do not share it, nor claim it to be objective fact. If you acknowledge that it's your opinion, that's fine. You're allowed to dislike it, and even to find it ridiculous. You're not allowed to claim that anybody who doesn't agree that it's ridiculous is somehow intellectually dishonest or intellectually inferior by scoffing at them and calling them "amusing" in the same tone that Frieza might have called Vegeta "precious."

[2D8HP]

Whether they're good or bad rules mechanics, I'm not going to touch with a ten foot pole from D&D, or an eleven foot pole from Tunnels & Trolls, but while it's mostly about Armor Class, Hit points are also mentioned, so I thought this piece by one of the guys who helped write rules for early D&D would be germane:
What we really meant—Pt. 1--AC


In recent weeks I have found myself, as part of an exciting new project I have embarked upon, doing a lot of synopsizing what some have come to see as complex or confusing concepts. One example that springs to mind is the old stat known as Armor or Armor Class (AC). In*OD&D*it was a really simple system that ranked plain old street clothes as AC9, while at the other end of the non-magical spectrum was plate mail and a shield at AC2


If Hit Points (HP) are considered to be your ability to avoid/evade a mortal blow (which they were in*OD&D), then AC was how hard you were “to hit” (in this case threaten your well-being to some degree).


“To Hit” is another term that does not exactly mean what it seems to mean based on just the words. Confused yet? Consider “the Mountain” from*Game of Thrones*on HBO. This is one HUGE dude encased in metal. If three or four puny (normal-sized) guys attack him, chances are that their weapons will actually make physical contact with The Mountain lots of times; this is not what is referenced in “To Hit”. Of those several physical contacts, only a small proportion of them will actually strike with a potential to do actual damage;*i.e.*pierce the armor at a weak point or joint, or slice or pierce some flesh. Those are what are winnowed out of the combat to be represented by the To Hit number.

Back t0 AC; something as small and ephemeral as a pixie or sprite, or small and quick like a stirge would be somewhat difficult to simply swat out of the air like an over-sized wasp. To simulate that facet of their being I make them hard “to hit” by giving them a very good AC.


(OD&D*had a descending AC system starting at 9 and going down; other systems use an ascending system, where 1 is street togs and 7 or 8 is really buff. Readjust this in your head to match your system; the concepts remain constant. Something slow and ponderous, such as a pachyderm, would be easier to strike, but the thickness of the skin somewhat mitigates this as well as the high number of HP an elephant or mammoth might have.)


AC does not always indicate what is being worn. AC is a combination of several concepts, not only the weight of the metal being worn.


To maintain perspective remember this: we were trying to bring miniatures to the table top. Several of the seemingly complex considerations and calculations were second nature to miniatures gamers. We tried to abstract a lot of what was second nature in minis to a whole new milieu—Table-top Role-playing (and this before it was even*called*role-playing).


Once this concept is grasped in the abstract, it then becomes more clear why extraordinary attributes can affect AC, or otherwise make the PC harder “To Hit”. These same attributes also can grant the PC more HP, all in recognition of how that last, fatal blow is just that, fatal. I have never counted anything more than “dead”; hit 0 HP and you died. Whether or not your PC can be Raised or Resurrected is another matter entirely. We had PC’s brought back from dead several times, although not always with absolute best results.



But anyway, that’s what we meant.

[Lacuna Caster]

Guys, Max_Killjoy is determined to insist that hit points, particularly as they are present in D&D, are not only subjectively something he doesn't like, but objectively are bad mechanics, and he's going to insist that they're whatever straw man he has to invent to make his argument work, even if he has to have several different straw men to pull out to dodge illustrations of why any particular one is actually defensible.
I think he's taking aim more at the notion that Hit Points model dodginess, or bone density, or fire retardation, or spell resistance or whatever else is required to mitigate (though not eliminate) physical punishment on a somewhat ad-hoc, moment-to-moment basis, in such a way as to preserve the idea that high-level PCs are still physiologically human. (Or demihuman, or whatever.) I don't know if that's 'objectively' impossible, but it does seem to get harder to swallow as more and more wounds accumulate and more and more rules get invoked on the basis of injury.

I would mention that quite similar interpretations can pop up in various conflict-resolution-based games where each participant (or perhaps team) starts with a 'disposition' score that gets worn down until a winner is declared, and binding mechanical effects might not be settled on until afterwards. e.g, where the players might describe how they swing and parry and grunt and get tripped up and winded, and the effects of injury or fatigue (or even death) don't become 'apparent' until the adrenaline haze wears off.

I'm personally quite okay with that approach, but the fact that HP don't reset each scene and *only* apply to combat suggests they're more of a literal pummelling-buffer.

[Max_Killjoy]

I think he's taking aim more at the notion that Hit Points model dodginess, or bone density, or fire retardation, or spell resistance or whatever else is required to mitigate (though not eliminate) physical punishment on a somewhat ad-hoc, moment-to-moment basis, in such a way as to preserve the idea that high-level PCs are still physiologically human. (Or demihuman, or whatever.) I don't know if that's 'objectively' impossible, but it does seem to get harder to swallow as more and more wounds accumulate and more and more rules get invoked on the basis of injury.

----

I'm personally quite okay with that approach, but the fact that HP don't reset each scene and *only* apply to combat suggests they're more of a literal pummelling-buffer.


I'm taking aim at the fact that D&D-type accumulating Hit Points cannot be explained in a way that doesn't do one or more of the following:

1) Require the characters to become literally superhuman as they rise in level, taking a multitude of wounds that would easily kill lower characters.
2) Conflict and overlap with the other mechanics of the game (the aforementioned muddle).
3) Totally diverge from any attempt to map/model, making HP a pure game mechanic totally disassociated from the actual game "world".

So far, in over 30 years of involvement in the hobby, and certainly in this thread, no one has offered an explanation that doesn't hit one or more of these fatal flaws.

[Lacuna Caster]

Easy, Max. I'm approximately on your side here. Can we take it as given that either the point has been emphasised, or any lingering objectors are unlikely to be dissuaded?

[Segev]

I'm taking aim at the fact that D&D-type accumulating Hit Points cannot be explained in a way that doesn't do one or more of the following:

1) Require the characters to become literally superhuman as they rise in level, taking a multitude of wounds that would easily kill a lower characters.
2) Conflict and overlap with the other mechanics of the game (the aforementioned muddle).
3) Totally diverge from any attempt to map/model, making HP a pure game mechanic totally disassociated from the actual game "world".

So far, in over 30 years of involvement in the hobby, and certainly in this thread, no one has offered an explanation that doesn't hit one of these fatal flaws.

"Conflict with other mechanics of the game" doesn't happen. "Overlap" does, but it's only a fatal flaw on your own mind. It is perfectly clear where the rules apply and what they mean, unless one is determined to metaphorically cover one's eyes and insist it's impossible to metaphorically read a metaphorical sign telling you to metaphorically go left to get to the metaphorical Men's room. (I say "metaphorical" a lot here because I just know that if I don't, pedantry will come out to take things literally that clearly aren't.)

You're entitled to your opinion. I don't agree with it, but I hardly begrudge you it. It's your insistence, as in this post I quoted, that you're somehow objectively right and that nobody has ever proven you wrong (when you go out of your way to ignore or sneer at any attempt do address your concerns rather than actually discuss them) that causes people to react badly to your supposed "opinion."

That you feel the need to insult anybody who doesn't share your opinion is why people keep objecting to your position.

"I don't like it" is fine.

"Anybody who does like it is intellectually inferior and is so amusing for trying to pretend they aren't" is not. You've explicitly stated the latter, and implicitly asserted the former clause in that "not fine" sentence.

[Max_Killjoy]

Easy, Max. I'm approximately on your side here. Can we take it as given that either the point has been emphasised, or any lingering objectors are unlikely to be dissuaded?

Any apparent frustration not directed at you.

Frustration is because whichever fault is pointed out, somehow magically D&D-style HP morph into something else... when the fault of that other concept is pointed out, suddenly they're something else, and when the fault in that is pointed out, they become yet something else again. It's impossible to pin down what HP are supposed to be.

[Segev]

Any apparent frustration not directed at you.

Frustration is because whichever fault is pointed out, somehow magically D&D-style HP morph into something else... when the fault of that other concept is pointed out, suddenly they're something else, and when the fault in that is pointed out, they become yet something else again. It's impossible to pin down what HP are supposed to be.

Oddly, that's my complaint about your "objective" problems with it.

HP are what I've said they are. You keep shifting from objection to objection as each is addressed, in order to avoid acknowledging that each has been.

Hit points are a combination of things, ultimately amounting to a diminishing reserve of "energy" (whether "vitality" or "divine protection" or "luck" or "narrative protection" or "personal reserves to throw yourself mostly out of the way"). As long as you have them, your wounds are minor enough that you can keep functioning, and the only weakness (at least without effects from something other than hp damage) incurred is that you're that much closer to making a fatal mistake or being unable to turn aside a fatal blow.

That's it.

1) is a possibility; you CAN have the superhumanly tough barbarian or fighter shaking off wounds that lesser mortals find debilitating. It isn't REQUIRED, but it's a possibility.

2) is two objections: conflict and overlap. There is no conflict, no matter how much you want to pretend otherwise by insisting that just because Reflex saves and AC both represent renewable, non-diminishing ability to avoid being harmed, hp cannot represent an otherwise-lethal thrust of a spear instead glancing off your rib cage. Overlap, sure. But to claim it's a fatal flaw is just your opinion. It in no way makes the game mechanic hard to understand, nor inhibits one's ability to map the game mechanic to events in-game (unless one willfully insists it does, just as the small child insists he cannot tie his shoes because he refuses to try).

3) is patently false, as you've repeatedly simply rejected the mappings and modelings as ridiculous, scoffing and sneering at how "amusing" it is when people try to do it. Because you can't actually point to any flaws in it and so resort to ad hominem, mocking people for daring to present it. "No, really, I can do math. See, here's a calculus problem I have correctly solved." "Oh, it's so amusing to watch people like him try to claim they can do calculus. (Pay no attention to the fact that he's actually shown he can do it. Just act like he's stupid and his answer couldn't possibly be right.)"


So no, Max_Killjoy, all three of your "fatal flaws" have been addressed, and/or demonstrated not to be so "fatal." It's fine that you don't like the answers, and that the answers don't make you like hp. It is not fine that you mock anybody who finds the answers acceptable or who provides them, and insist that you're objectively right and they're objectively wrong to the point of intellectual dishonesty or deficiency.

[Lacuna Caster]

Hit points are a combination of things, ultimately amounting to a diminishing reserve of "energy" (whether "vitality" or "divine protection" or "luck" or "narrative protection" or "personal reserves to throw yourself mostly out of the way")...

...There is no conflict, no matter how much you want to pretend otherwise by insisting that just because Reflex saves and AC both represent renewable, non-diminishing ability to avoid being harmed, hp cannot represent an otherwise-lethal thrust of a spear instead glancing off your rib cage. Overlap, sure.
I'm pretty this was brought up before, but I don't think this really accounts for the rules on immersion in lava or acid, and various other effects. You could throw those specific rules out, but the 'death by a thousand cuts' thing still kinda strains suspension of disbelief. Wouldn't 'divine protection' or whatever try to avoid the blow entirely?

(To be fair, it's not like high-level PCs are typically taking a hundred itty bits of d8 damage- at that point, enemies have massively boosted damage output as well, so the amount of blow-for-blow trading is comparable. But in principle, if you don't want the superhero feel, better defensive skills would seem more a more elegant solution.)

[Max_Killjoy]

I'm pretty this was brought up before, but I don't think this really accounts for the rules on immersion in lava or acid, and various other effects. You could throw those specific rules out, but the 'death by a thousand cuts' thing still kinda strains suspension of disbelief. Wouldn't 'divine protection' or whatever try to avoid the blow entirely?

(To be fair, it's not like high-level PCs are typically taking a hundred itty bits of d8 damage- at that point, enemies have massively boosted damage output as well, so the amount of blow-for-blow trading is comparable. But in principle, if you don't want the superhero feel, better defensive skills would seem more a more elegant solution.)


And as someone else said:



Ah, so you're looking for ease of mapping. "Readability" is one of my highest benchmarks for code, so I approve.

Yes, D&D doesn't get top ratings in this regard. Making you faster... improves what? Making you luckier... improves what?

[Quertus]

Any apparent frustration not directed at you.

Frustration is because whichever fault is pointed out, somehow magically D&D-style HP morph into something else... when the fault of that other concept is pointed out, suddenly they're something else, and when the fault in that is pointed out, they become yet something else again. It's impossible to pin down what HP are supposed to be.

There are a great many factors that go into combat.

Having a game that maps all these factors individually would, as you have agreed, not be fun.

Most everyone who, like me, has worked with compressing X-dimensional arrays of data down into 2-3D models for ease of viewing will tell you that expecting any given area in your model to intuitively map back to your larger data set is just silly.

And that's exactly what you're doing here.

Expecting people to stop telling you that you're being silly is unreasonable.

But

I'm also the math genius who wants numbers to be intuitive; when the numbers stop being intuitive for me, it's generally a sign you've done something wrong. So I don't like using or thinking about the models I've created, because of the same lack of intuitive mapping that I believe you are feeling.

I like to believe that there is a "right" answer, a way of creating the mapping such that it is intuitive to math geniuses or HP haters.

If you find it, let me know.

Until then, understand that people explaining the complex x-to-2 dimensional mapping that is HP are going to consider us quite... Quixotic. If they don't believe that your failure to understand the nature of the mechanics of such a mathematical transformation to be the result of malicious ignorance instead of genuine inability to groc it, that is.


I'm pretty this was brought up before, but I don't think this really accounts for the rules on immersion in lava or acid, and various other effects. You could throw those specific rules out, but the 'death by a thousand cuts' thing still kinda strains suspension of disbelief. Wouldn't 'divine protection' or whatever try to avoid the blow entirely?

(To be fair, it's not like high-level PCs are typically taking a hundred itty bits of d8 damage- at that point, enemies have massively boosted damage output as well, so the amount of blow-for-blow trading is comparable. But in principle, if you don't want the superhero feel, better defensive skills would seem more a more elegant solution.)

People keep talking as though it is more reasonable to expect HP to model a real person than to model, say, an action movie hero.

But, yeah, submersion in lava dealing damage instead of just applying the "dead" condition is pretty ridiculous.

Unless their lava is somehow not the same as real-world lava...

[Jormengand]

Again, can we... not? Or at least move to another thread?

[GorinichSerpant]

Such arguments cannot possibly go anywhere, for everyone knows goth>emo, Ford>Chevy, all forms of metal are equally valid, and the Cowboys are 'Murica's Team [the rest of the NFL can suck it]. :smalltongue:
I have no opinion on cars or sports teams, everything else seems to check out.

[Keltest]

I'm pretty this was brought up before, but I don't think this really accounts for the rules on immersion in lava or acid, and various other effects. You could throw those specific rules out, but the 'death by a thousand cuts' thing still kinda strains suspension of disbelief. Wouldn't 'divine protection' or whatever try to avoid the blow entirely?

(To be fair, it's not like high-level PCs are typically taking a hundred itty bits of d8 damage- at that point, enemies have massively boosted damage output as well, so the amount of blow-for-blow trading is comparable. But in principle, if you don't want the superhero feel, better defensive skills would seem more a more elegant solution.)

If there is a problem where lava or falling or whatever does not kill someone sufficiently quickly, its because the specific rules for how much damage those things do are out of tune with the reality (the reality being that you would have suffocated and/or spontaneously combusted long before you got anywhere near enough to actually touch lava) rather than because HP does not work as a system.

[Bohandas]

If there is a problem where lava or falling or whatever does not kill someone sufficiently quickly, its because the specific rules for how much damage those things do are out of tune with the reality (the reality being that you would have suffocated and/or spontaneously combusted long before you got anywhere near enough to actually touch lava)

These folks look ok


http://www.deephawaii.com/lava/lavahikeMay2004.jpg

http://www.deephawaii.com/lava/lava5.jpg

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS7pTL38fVqpQm2vYQYI2JDJMqb9SlRf tdAF0JENtAy6Lz_YrIy

http://www.kohalatours.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/GuidedLavaHike.jpg



I think you're thinking of pyroclastic flow.

And at any rate, spontaneous combustion wouldn't really make a huge difference because the rules for characters that are on fire are also underwhelming at high levels

[Segev]

I'm pretty this was brought up before, but I don't think this really accounts for the rules on immersion in lava or acid, and various other effects. You could throw those specific rules out, but the 'death by a thousand cuts' thing still kinda strains suspension of disbelief. Wouldn't 'divine protection' or whatever try to avoid the blow entirely?

(To be fair, it's not like high-level PCs are typically taking a hundred itty bits of d8 damage- at that point, enemies have massively boosted damage output as well, so the amount of blow-for-blow trading is comparable. But in principle, if you don't want the superhero feel, better defensive skills would seem more a more elegant solution.)


If there is a problem where lava or falling or whatever does not kill someone sufficiently quickly, its because the specific rules for how much damage those things do are out of tune with the reality (the reality being that you would have suffocated and/or spontaneously combusted long before you got anywhere near enough to actually touch lava) rather than because HP does not work as a system.
More or less this. I won't speak to "the reality," but if your problem is that hp damage from certain effects seems out of line with your verisimilitude, that is not a flaw in the concept of hp as presented in the system you're discussing. That's a flaw in how those effects are represented.

One could uncap falling damage, as a start. One could also give it a more polynomial or exponential increase. Or make it a save-or-die with a rapidly-increasing DC based on height. Nothing inherent to "hit points represent your ability to turn what would otherwise be a fatal blow into something non-fatal" compels (say) 1d6 per 10 feet of falling, capped at 20d6.

(Though, frankly, given that a PC high enough level to find 20d6 survivable probably also has access to resources which would let him feather fall or fly safely. And even if he doesn't, the triviality of such resources by that point means that it's not all that ludicrous for him to just use his hp as the resource to absorb the fall, instead.)

Regardless, main point: if your problem with hp is that lava damage and falling damage aren't well represented by them, then it's a problem with how those things are represented and/or the damage codes on those things, not with hp-as-a-concept.

[Max_Killjoy]

Again, can we... not? Or at least move to another thread?

I'd love to move on, but evidently if I say "D&D HP are ridiculous", I have to then defend not only that position, but also my character, against someone who thinks people who disagree with him are all idiots. I even tried putting that person on ignore.

[Lacuna Caster]

More or less this. I won't speak to "the reality," but if your problem is that hp damage from certain effects seems out of line with your verisimilitude, that is not a flaw in the concept of hp as presented in the system you're discussing. That's a flaw in how those effects are represented.

One could uncap falling damage, as a start. One could also give it a more polynomial or exponential increase. Or make it a save-or-die with a rapidly-increasing DC based on height...
One could, but if we're talking about adding and replacing rules- i.e, a design process- and baseline realism is your goal, it is mathematically simpler, and easier for players to interpret, to just not accumulate that many Hit Points to begin with, and have constant factors yield constant damage. It's something like hollow earth cosmology (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollow_Earth#Concave_Hollow_Earths)- you can modify all the physics in such a way as to preserve consistency with the starting assumption, but at that point, why bother? You're not getting any extra sim for your money (unlike, say, adding wound mechanics.)

[Keltest]

One could, but if we're talking about adding and replacing rules- i.e, a design process- and baseline realism is your goal, it is mathematically simpler, and easier for players to interpret, to just not accumulate that many Hit Points to begin with, and have constant factors yield constant damage. It's something like hollow earth cosmology (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollow_Earth#Concave_Hollow_Earths)- you can modify all the physics in such a way as to preserve consistency with the starting assumption, but at that point, why bother? You're not getting any extra sim for your money (unlike, say, adding wound mechanics.)

Ok, but then your 20th level fighter who can go toe to toe with a dragon is going to get offed by an orc with a sword and a lucky D20. Again, it isn't a problem with hit points, its a problem with the fall/lava/whatever damage. And I am definitely confused as to how it is simpler and more intuitive to rebalance the entire game around the new hit point pool than it is to just declare lava immediately lethal to people without magical protection.

[Bohandas]

More or less this. I won't speak to "the reality," but if your problem is that hp damage from certain effects seems out of line with your verisimilitude, that is not a flaw in the concept of hp as presented in the system you're discussing. That's a flaw in how those effects are represented.

One could uncap falling damage, as a start. One could also give it a more polynomial or exponential increase. Or make it a save-or-die with a rapidly-increasing DC based on height. Nothing inherent to "hit points represent your ability to turn what would otherwise be a fatal blow into something non-fatal" compels (say) 1d6 per 10 feet of falling, capped at 20d6.


The damage cap is actually kind of realistic because if you fall far enough eventually you stop accelerating, due to air resistence.

[Lacuna Caster]

Ok, but then your 20th level fighter who can go toe to toe with a dragon is going to get offed by an orc with a sword and a lucky D20.
*shrugs* Conceivably, yes, depending on just how the combat and damage interactions flow- nobody ever said realism was reliably fun, for certain values of 'fun'. But some folks value it anyway, to the extent that 'even veteran swordsmen need to think twice about violence' might be an intended selling point.

Again, it isn't a problem with hit points, its a problem with the fall/lava/whatever damage. And I am definitely confused as to how it is simpler and more intuitive to rebalance the entire game around the new hit point pool than it is to just declare lava immediately lethal to people without magical protection.
If you're talking specifically about taking apart D&D and reassembling around the new assumption, I would agree (though capping hit dice (http://www.myth-weavers.com/wiki/index.php/Epic_6) isn't the most unreasonable response.) But if we're talking more generally about whether Hit Points are 'objectively bad' as a way to represent and handle physiologically human protagonists... then I am forced to conclude there are better frameworks out there, yes.

[Lacuna Caster]

The damage cap is actually kind of realistic because if you fall far enough eventually you stop accelerating, due to air resistence.
Yes, this is known as terminal velocity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_Velocity_(film)).

[Keltest]

If you're talking specifically about taking apart D&D and reassembling around the new assumption, I would agree (though capping hit dice (http://www.myth-weavers.com/wiki/index.php/Epic_6) isn't the most unreasonable response.) But if we're talking more generally about whether Hit Points are 'objectively bad' as a way to represent and handle physiologically human protagonists... then I am forced to conclude there are better frameworks out there, yes.

If you define "better" exclusively as "more realistically" then sure, go the distance. But reality isn't neat and convenient for ruling, and theres absolutely no guarantee that it would be any easier to understand.

[Lacuna Caster]

If you define "better" exclusively as "more realistically" then sure, go the distance. But reality isn't neat and convenient for ruling, and theres absolutely no guarantee that it would be any easier to understand.
I'm just pointing out that, e.g, capping total HP at 20 or 30 or some other plausible human maximum (based on whatever the typical damage scale would be) isn't any more mathematically complex or harder to rule on than, e.g, gaining hit dice each 'level', for ever and ever. The latter is standard in D&D, while the former is simpler to interpret in realism-preserving ways.

[Keltest]

I'm just pointing out that, e.g, capping total HP at 20 or 30 or some other plausible human maximum (based on whatever the typical damage scale would be) isn't any more mathematically complex or harder to rule on than, e.g, gaining hit dice each 'level', for ever and ever. The latter is standard in D&D, while the former is simpler to interpret in realism-preserving ways.

Ok, but then you end up with people being completely unable to survive, say, a bear attack unless theyre in super ultra magic armor. When a party of ultra-epic legendary heroes are losing members to being attacked by wolves in the forest, that's a bit of a problem.

[Lacuna Caster]

Ok, but then you end up with people being completely unable to survive, say, a bear attack unless theyre in super ultra magic armor. When a party of ultra-epic legendary heroes are losing members to being attacked by wolves in the forest, that's a bit of a problem.
Is it, though (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3GFYKIwJ9Y)?

Alternative question- if your heroes are safely insulated from the risk of death by, e.g, a nice deterministic damage buffer and resurrection mechanics, how heroic can they really be?

[Keltest]

Is it, though (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3GFYKIwJ9Y)?

Alternative question- if your heroes are safely insulated from the risk of death by, e.g, a nice deterministic damage buffer and resurrection mechanics, how heroic can they really be?

A: those are wargs, which are both significantly larger and significantly more intelligent than wolves

B: none of the fellowship died, only the nameless non-herioic rohan grunts.

As for the "damage buffer", the fact that theyre so hard to kill is exactly what makes them heroes. Any shlub can go pick a fight with an orc and get themselves stabbed to death, but it takes a special type of person to be able to challenge the evil wizard and not just get killed by the obligatory trap door under the door mat of their evil castle, let alone actually kill the evil wizard.

[ace rooster]

Ok, but then you end up with people being completely unable to survive, say, a bear attack unless theyre in super ultra magic armor. When a party of ultra-epic legendary heroes are losing members to being attacked by wolves in the forest, that's a bit of a problem.

True, but it is not like that is not a problem anyway. A bear specifically has improved grab, and good luck getting a better grapple check than it before level 12 without shinies (Ok yeah it is easy if you build for it, but who does?). HP falls down as a defence mechanic because status effects ignore it.

I don't think that HP as a defence mechanic is ridiculous. I think that the fact that there exist basic effects that ignore all defence mechanics is the ridiculous bit.


To push another direction, I'm going to bring up black tentacles. Sure, it is a great spell, but it is ridiculous for two reasons.

Firstly, it seems to cherry pick when it is and is not magical. The tentacles are indestructable. Ignoring the fact that even force effects are not entirely indestructable, this should strongly suggest that it is magical. It also hits automatically. Again, magical effects are the only other things which hit automatically (which is another ridiculous rule anyway). An epic monk that does not get hit by rain will still be hit by the tentacles. In spite of this, it is still SR no, because they are mundane.

Secondly, despite the existance of a set of grapple rules, it does not follow them. Instead of an initial touch attack to hit, it autohits. It then does not do damage on establishing a grapple, where normally a standard grappler would.

[Max_Killjoy]

A: those are wargs, which are both significantly larger and significantly more intelligent than wolves

B: none of the fellowship died, only the nameless non-herioic rohan grunts.

As for the "damage buffer", the fact that theyre so hard to kill is exactly what makes them heroes. Any shlub can go pick a fight with an orc and get themselves stabbed to death, but it takes a special type of person to be able to challenge the evil wizard and not just get killed by the obligatory trap door under the door mat of their evil castle, let alone actually kill the evil wizard.

None of which requires a disassociated lump of "I can survive stuff" points that the character burns off as they survive stuff.

It can be based on better skills, being actually tougher, being luckier, etc, all as distinct mechanics that actually map to something discrete.

[Keltest]

None of which requires a disassociated lump of "I can survive stuff" points that the character burns off as they survive stuff.

It can be based on better skills, being actually tougher, being luckier, etc, all as distinct mechanics that actually map to something discrete.

Sure, ok, but now you have 3 or more different mechanics all modeling the same thing: a finite way to stave off death. Unless they aren't all finite, but some are instead hit or miss, in which case that's the current system we have.

[ace rooster]

None of which requires a disassociated lump of "I can survive stuff" points that the character burns off as they survive stuff.

It can be based on better skills, being actually tougher, being luckier, etc, all as distinct mechanics that actually map to something discrete.

It certainly can be, but it doesn't tend to give you a very good RPG mechanic. It can give you a great song of ice and fire game, as PCs die off randomly despite decent play against standard opponents, but that is often not the feel you want (despite realism). What you usually want is a system where good play should result in an almost 0% chance of PC death, and that number rapidly climbs with bad play. Ablative defences like HP are good for achieving this, where chance based systems are difficult to get safe enough and still have a game (ie, random bandits are either likely to kill a PC, or the players could go AFK and still have their characters win the encounter).

[kyoryu]

It can give you a great song of ice and fire game, as PCs die off randomly despite decent play against standard opponents

They really don't. Any protagonist-ish character in SoIaF really only dies from narrative complications. Not random arrows from a mook.

Any of the three protagonists, or any of the semi-protagonists have roughly the same level of plot armor when it comes to "random death". They die because, narratively, they've gotten themselves stuck in a box with no escape.

[Jormengand]

It certainly can be, but it doesn't tend to give you a very good RPG mechanic. It can give you a great song of ice and fire game, as PCs die off randomly despite decent play against standard opponents, but that is often not the feel you want (despite realism).

This is where I mention SIFRP, isn't it?

So, Song of Ice and Fire RP has hit points, but they don't magically increase as you get more experienced, and also they can only save you against one or two attacks before you start being injured or wounded in a more lasting manner, which actually means that if someone hits you with a greatsword, it's entirely possible that you'll actually take some kind of lasting injury from it - the principle of "Just a flesh wound" only goes so far. Of course, this is the kind of setting where any schmuck with a sword is dangerous, if not very dangerous, and the correct response to a dragon is less "Kill it and take its stuff!" and more "Run! Freaking hell, run!". So it works for that setting.

[Max_Killjoy]

Sure, ok, but now you have 3 or more different mechanics all modeling the same thing: a finite way to stave off death. Unless they aren't all finite, but some are instead hit or miss, in which case that's the current system we have.

Part of the disconnect here is that "staving off death" is a narrative meta-concept, which can randomly include any number of factors.

It's not "how evasive are you?" or "how lucky are you?" or "how physically tough are you?" or "how much do the gods like you?", but rather any, all, or none of these, depending on the circumstances.

Personally, I loath this sort of "he's hard to kill because he's the protagonist" things in fiction, and in RPGs. If the character is hard to kill for a demonstrable, discrete reason, that's fine, but I loath contrivances and plot armor.

[Lacuna Caster]

A: those are wargs, which are both significantly larger and significantly more intelligent than wolves

B: none of the fellowship died, only the nameless non-herioic rohan grunts.
Oh, but they easily could have, and they did indeed 'lose' a party member for some non-trivial length of time. And you may recall that 'dying to a random orc' is exactly what happened to Boromir (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqjfq5gsfYk).

And no, I don't think winning-ness is what makes a hero (http://lesswrong.com/lw/ll/mere_messiahs/).


They really don't. Any protagonist-ish character in SoIaF really only dies from narrative complications. Not random arrows from a mook.
Several of them come close, if you include the effects of lingering infection. That said, I don't have a particular problem with some kind of additional metagame currency for, e.g, re-rolling saves-vs.-death, but I personally prefer if it's explicitly labelled as a luck mechanic (or karma, or artha, or hero points, or whatevs.)

[Max_Killjoy]

Oh, but they easily could have, and they did indeed 'lose' a party member for some non-trivial length of time. And you may recall that 'dying to a random orc' is exactly what happened to Boromir (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqjfq5gsfYk).

And no, I don't think winning-ness is what makes a hero (http://lesswrong.com/lw/ll/mere_messiahs/).


Several of them come close, if you include the effects of lingering infection. That said, I don't have a particular problem with some kind of additional metagame currency for, e.g, re-rolling saves-vs.-death, but I personally prefer if it's explicitly labelled as a luck mechanic (or karma, or artha, or hero points, or whatevs.)

Exactly -- if there's going to be meta-currency or "ablative narrative armor", it should be a separate and explicit thing, not conflated with the actual qualitative and quantitative attributes of the character.

[Segev]

Please come back once the spell is called Cure Light Luck (and Remove Light Combat-Induced Stress Even Though That Wasn't Mind-Affecting, Honest)."Turn fatal wounds into non-fatal wounds" doesn't mean "you're not wounded."


I'd love to move on, but evidently if I say "D&D HP are ridiculous", I have to then defend not only that position, but also my character, against someone who thinks people who disagree with him are all idiots. I even tried putting that person on ignore.Ironically, it is precisely because you're insisting through your snide implications not just that "D&D HP are ridiculous," but that all who disagree with you are either stupid or maliciously being intellectually dishonest, that people keep arguing with you. If all your position is is that you, personally, find HP to be ridiculous (and in the connotative, rather than the denotative sense of literally "worthy of ridicule along with all who think otherwise"), then cut out the snide "isn't it amusing to watch people try to defend it" and accept that people do find it perfectly fine. Don't dodge refutations of your "fatal flaws" by scoffing and mocking people for daring to refute them, and then pretending they haven't been.

You can not like it. It's fine. You can't imply anybody who does is somehow your inferior. And then turning around and pretending I'm calling you "stupid" when I've done no such thing - and, unlike you, haven't even implied it - is, itself, pretty ridiculous.


The damage cap is actually kind of realistic because if you fall far enough eventually you stop accelerating, due to air resistence.Sure. I don't really have an issue with falling damage; I expect high-powered heroes to be able to do amazing things like fall from great heights and pick themselves up to keep moving. My point was that, if you have a problem with that, then it isn't a flaw in the hp system, but in the falling damage system.

[Arbane]

It's not like there aren't ten million RPGs that have already solved the HP problem in different ways....

[kyoryu]

Several of them come close, if you include the effects of lingering infection.

I don't - that's a narrative complication, not *dead*. Plot armor doesn't prevent bad things from happening to you. It means (for a "true" protagonist) that your story will continue, and for "named characters" that you don't die from just random randomness.

[Enixon]

And you may recall that 'dying to a random orc' is exactly what happened to Boromir (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqjfq5gsfYk).

I have to take issue with that, Boromir didn't die fighting a random orc, he died fighting dozens upon dozens of the buggers, and in the book it's even more so, rather than the realistic three or so arrows in the movie, he was riddled full of them.

[Knaight]

It's not like there aren't ten million RPGs that have already solved the HP problem in different ways....

Without any number of these theoretically inevitable consequences for not using D&D style HP even.

[Grod_The_Giant]

For example, Exalted 3e, which I think has the best take on the "hit points as plot armor" business I've seen. Most of your attacks don't damage hit points-- instead, they steal initiative, which represents general combat advantage. Bigger weapons, more powerful attacks, and armor all modify that exchange. The only way to actually hurt someone is a special attack based pretty much entirely on how much initiative you've accumulated-- but which, in turn, is impossible to resist without magic. Environmental effects like, say, falling off a hundred foot cliff go straight to dealing lethal damage, so even the world's best swordsman can die if he tries to go for a swim in lava*.

In general, I agree that D&D-style hit points aren't the best mechanic, but they have the advantage of simplicity and intuitive understanding. I doubt anyone in the last twenty years has had to sit down and seriously explain what taking damage means in D&D, as opposed to games like Fate or Exalted. And "bucketloads of HP"-based scaling has a major gameplay advantage over AC-based scaling-- it's much more fun to have frequent-minor-but-cumulative hits for five rounds than it is to whiff four times and then die the fifth.



*Well, in theory. It is Exalted; it's quite possible that the world's best swordsman can activate a charm, brush the lava off his shoulder and go on to cut a mountain in half, but that's all magic.

[thirdkingdom]

Can we drop the subject of hit points, please? It seems pretty clear that, while disliked by some, D&D style hit points do not fall into the "ridiculous rules" category. I humbly suggest that we go back to talking about FATAL's anal circumference, or deadEarth's character generation. (https://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?473443-Necro-deadEarth-why-isn-t-this-game-on-anyone-s-quot-Worst-Games-List-quot)

[Brookshw]

Back to silly rules
- standing behind a rice paper wall protects you from giant explosions (similar to hiding in a fridge to avoid a nuke).

- death by catapault accident during character creation.

[Quertus]

D&D falling damage is ridiculous - it does not successfully model all the random peasants, house cats, and small woodland creatures that have survived great falls. The insta-dead 20 HP minimum is ridiculous.

I therefore propose the following: falling damage is 1d8-1 per 10' fallen, capped at 20d8-20. There is an additional -1 per die if you have "advantage" over the fall (falling into water, successful tumble check, etc).

This, of course, is still ridiculous, as it would have a dandelion or parachute creating an unrealistic crater on impact.

So, clearly, we require additional cumulative modifiers to falling damage based on density, air resistance, etc.

[Lacuna Caster]

This is where I mention SIFRP, isn't it?

Plot armor doesn't prevent bad things from happening to you. It means (for a "true" protagonist) that your story will continue, and for "named characters" that you don't die from just random randomness.
Now that you mention it, I can't think of any definite examples in ASOIAF where that applies*. So... maybe, yeah, in this setting at least, random crits aren't the main source of mortality. I still reckon what Jormengand says makes sense, though, and that applies to a good deal of fantasy lit.

On Boromir: Even a dozen arrows at 1d6 apiece amounts to ~ 42 HP in damage, plus or minus? Making him, what, a reasonably optimised level 4-6 Fighter? (I mean, we can quibble about stat/gear bonuses for orcs vs. uruk hai, but... the math ain't gonna budge that much.)


In general, I agree that D&D-style hit points aren't the best mechanic, but they have the advantage of simplicity and intuitive understanding. I doubt anyone in the last twenty years has had to sit down and seriously explain what taking damage means in D&D, as opposed to games like Fate or Exalted. And "bucketloads of HP"-based scaling has a major gameplay advantage over AC-based scaling-- it's much more fun to have frequent-minor-but-cumulative hits for five rounds than it is to whiff four times and then die the fifth.
I think this depends very much on the nature of the 'whiffing'- if you're describing stance, positioning, blocks/parries, damage/soak, fatigue or openings in a fairly granular way then there's a good deal of descriptive interest even when you don't lodge a blade in someone's gullet. (But yeah, simple it ain't.)


* I was going to suggest Sandor Clegane but... he's MAKING A COMEBACK, BABY, WOOOOT </fanboy>

[Grod_The_Giant]

I think this depends very much on the nature of the 'whiffing'- if you're describing stance, positioning, blocks/parries, damage/soak, fatigue or openings in a fairly granular way then there's a good deal of descriptive interest even when you don't lodge a blade in someone's gullet. (But yeah, simple it ain't.)
Eh, it depends. The important thing, I think, is that it feels like you're making progress. Doing a bunch of HP damage feels like making progress. Breaking a chunk of their armor feels like making progress. Making them spend a bunch of "fatigue points" feels like making progress, potentially. You know? My suspicion is that even if there are a bunch of choices to make in how to block a blow, it will still feel frustrating.

[Kurald Galain]

There is an additional -1 per die if you have "advantage" over the fall (falling into water, successful tumble check, etc).
You might not know this, but water acts like concrete if you fall on it from sufficient height. It is, well, ridiculous :smalltongue: to make it give advantage in the rules.

http://www.askamathematician.com/2012/07/q-why-is-hitting-water-from-a-great-height-like-hitting-concrete/

[Quertus]

You might not know this, but water acts like concrete if you fall on it from sufficient height. It is, well, ridiculous :smalltongue: to make it give advantage in the rules.

http://www.askamathematician.com/2012/07/q-why-is-hitting-water-from-a-great-height-like-hitting-concrete/

Imma claim I didn't know that. So, clearly, it only grants advantage for short falls. Unless we're using fantasy water...

[Segev]

Back to silly rules
- standing behind a rice paper wall protects you from giant explosions (similar to hiding in a fridge to avoid a nuke).


Ooh, which system is this for?

[malachi]

In Warrior Rogue Mage, where attacks are rolled with a single exploding d6 (you roll one die for every action. If it is a 6, roll another die and add the totals together), a starting character can be made that can only be hit by another starting character on a roll of an 11 (so a 2/36 chance) - most NPCs in the book have less accuracy than a starting character. (And, since the only thing you have to do to make this is decide that you want a really strong, really dumb guy wearing the heaviest armor, its probably going to happen on accident).

Also in WRM, the highest HP someone can have at chargen is 12, although a starting blood mage can give himself 32 temp HP, and then use his actual 10 starting HP to cast AOE heals or vampiric attacks (which heal him for twice the amount of HP being spent to cast the spell). This character will also only get hit by 1/6 attacks by another starting character.

Also in WRM, there is a spell that lets you stop time. If you spend an hour resting, you regain a good chunk of mana. It is possible for a starting character (not sure if they have enough money to buy the starting spell, though) to stop time mid-combat and rest long enough to regain more mana than they spent stopping time in the first place.

[GungHo]

That doesn't make sense. If 0 HP means 'guts actually hanging out', and 1 HP is as close to that as it's possible to be, then that logically translates to 'guts nearly hanging out'. Otherwise you have a 1 HP loss (i.e, the merest possible scratch) translating to a spontaneous gouging gut wound.

Frankly, I don't see why I should have to expend this much mental effort trying to retrofit imagined physical outcomes to match with up with the math here. I am perfectly comfortable with the idea that high-level D&D characters are supernormal entities that can take repeated savage whacks from a claymore to the face and bathe in nitric acid, and I don't see how 'deciding' that every blow aside from the last was a superficial scratch (which basically implies a very uneven luck distribution) is any easier to swallow.
It's not about making sense. You are as fully functional at 100 HP as 1 HP beyond the fact that you have only 99 more HP to lose at 100. At 0 HP, you're toast. The deciding blow is the last HP. That's it. HP is an expended resource, just like everything else in the game. The problem isn't that HP is just a resource. It's that it's not perceived as a resource and people try to make it mean something else. There are other resources like spells, gold, potions, etc. The DM makes you expend them with encounters. You get it back by converting spells, potions, or rest time, with a cap of Max HP. It doesn't mean DrFunk is putting Sir Mixalot's spleen back in place by casting cure wounds. Mixalot's spleen is just fine. When he levels up, his cap increases, and he can take encounters that require more resource expenditure or go for more encounters before he has to convert spells, potions, or rest time to get back to his cap. That's why messing with things like treasure, spells, encounter rates, and other things can throw the game off kilter, even when people are well meaning and think "it makes no rational sense that there'd be magic weapons and potions everywhere." It does make rational sense, but it just doesn't lead you to the conclusion you were expecting.

[Brookshw]

Ooh, which system is this for?

A surprising number of them. It's a side effect of line of effect rules which don't permit effects to penatrate barriers (though they may possibly destroy them). More damning is when effects do have specific rules that allow them to penetrate a barrier and keep going we're left with the inference that it's not the standard case (e.g., lightning bolt in many editions). Ultimately I'm sure it's an oversight and unintentional but it's pretty common in a number of systems I've played and I like laughing at it.

[Bohandas]

A surprising number of them. It's a side effect of line of effect rules which don't permit effects to penatrate barriers

Therein lies the key. Does it actually say "barrier"? You'd be hard pressed to justify a rice papermwall as being a "barrier"

[Kurald Galain]

Therein lies the key. Does it actually say "barrier"? You'd be hard pressed to justify a rice papermwall as being a "barrier"

It strikes me the ridiculous part here is not so much the rule that "walls block LOE", but the extrapolation that "hey, a rice paper wall is technically a wall..."

Don't assume that a general rule also applies in obscure corner cases. Dealing with obscure corner cases is the GM's job, there's nothing ridiculous about that.

[PersonMan]

Eh, it depends. The important thing, I think, is that it feels like you're making progress. Doing a bunch of HP damage feels like making progress. Breaking a chunk of their armor feels like making progress. Making them spend a bunch of "fatigue points" feels like making progress, potentially. You know? My suspicion is that even if there are a bunch of choices to make in how to block a blow, it will still feel frustrating.

Perfect example: GURPS combat (at least the revised 3rd edition rules I played with).

Unless you get a perfect success with your skill roll to attack, your opponent has several defensive skills they can use to avoid it. Which leads to a fight comprised of "oh, I made my attack roll. Oh, they made their defense roll, so nothing happens" until someone manages to land a hit.

[thirdkingdom]

Back to silly rules
- standing behind a rice paper wall protects you from giant explosions (similar to hiding in a fridge to avoid a nuke).

- death by catapault accident during character creation.

This doesn't strike me as a ridiculous rule, but rather a ridiculous interpretation of the rule.

--------

Here's what I think of as a ridiculous rule:

In deadEarth, you may only create three characters (https://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?473443-Necro-deadEarth-why-isn-t-this-game-on-anyone-s-quot-Worst-Games-List-quot&p=10915728#post10915728). Ever.

[SimonMoon6]

To encourage people to discuss other rules (other than D&D HP), here's something that's not the most ridiculous rule, but it might annoy some people:

In TORG, you use the same die roll to determine both hitting and damaging. This means that if you have a character that is very hard to hit, the only times that you will be hit will be when the opponent rolls so high that you are going to be taking massive damage as well. Someone who is hard to hit is never going to take a minor injury. They refer to this as the "glass ninja" problem.

[Max_Killjoy]

To encourage people to discuss other rules (other than D&D HP), here's something that's not the most ridiculous rule, but it might annoy some people:

In TORG, you use the same die roll to determine both hitting and damaging. This means that if you have a character that is very hard to hit, the only times that you will be hit will be when the opponent rolls so high that you are going to be taking massive damage as well. Someone who is hard to hit is never going to take a minor injury. They refer to this as the "glass ninja" problem.

Many attempts to speed up combat or otherwise "streamline" a system end up with these sorts of wonky quirks.

[georgie_leech]

To encourage people to discuss other rules (other than D&D HP), here's something that's not the most ridiculous rule, but it might annoy some people:

In TORG, you use the same die roll to determine both hitting and damaging. This means that if you have a character that is very hard to hit, the only times that you will be hit will be when the opponent rolls so high that you are going to be taking massive damage as well. Someone who is hard to hit is never going to take a minor injury. They refer to this as the "glass ninja" problem.

I don't think that's too out there, actually. The complete impossibility is a bit much, but when you think in terms of the the hard to hit character only getting hit by well aimed attacks, well, it seems reasonable that said attacks would also tend to be more damaging. A glass ninja gracefully dodges aside from most blows, but that one expert cut slips right past their defences; the heavily armed warrior is protected by thick armor that turns all but the mightiest blows aside, which would crush them in spite of protection, or a well placed stiletto that slips right past the plates. Can't comment on TORG specifically, but as a general concept it seems alright.

Actually, I could see such a system being good for accountingfor different attack types. Like, said heavily armored warrior being relatively easy to damage with blunt attacks, as they tend to still do damage even through plate, but it's hard to superficially wound them with a rapier or arrow.

[Telok]

One pretty silly thing in several systems is aiming requirements on some magic spells. When a spell shoots a blast of fire, ice, electricity, whatever you expect that your character picked a direction and launched whatever sort of zappyness you picked.

Some systems like to put line of sight, line of effect, and the ability to only target "creatures" on these spells. So these spells can't be used to shoot at someone behind a pane of glass, shot into smoke filled rooms, or affect those rice paper walls. It dosen't matter if your fire blast can incinerate a horse or you ice shot can knock over an elephant, rice paper is immune to your mastery of arcane power.

[Arbane]

Here's what I think of as a ridiculous rule:

In deadEarth, you may only create three characters (https://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?473443-Necro-deadEarth-why-isn-t-this-game-on-anyone-s-quot-Worst-Games-List-quot&p=10915728#post10915728). Ever.

From what I've seen of it, DeadEarth doesn't have a lot of NON-ridiculous rules.

-------

Anyone here played Godlike? ISTR reading that due to a quirk of the One Roll Engine's hit-locations a flying character couldn't be shot in the foot, but I don't remember the details, and Google's not helping.

[Quertus]

To encourage people to discuss other rules (other than D&D HP), here's something that's not the most ridiculous rule, but it might annoy some people:

In TORG, you use the same die roll to determine both hitting and damaging. This means that if you have a character that is very hard to hit, the only times that you will be hit will be when the opponent rolls so high that you are going to be taking massive damage as well. Someone who is hard to hit is never going to take a minor injury. They refer to this as the "glass ninja" problem.

No different than older editions of D&D, where many times, the only way to hit is to crit.

[DrewID]

This doesn't strike me as a ridiculous rule, but rather a ridiculous interpretation of the rule.

--------

Here's what I think of as a ridiculous rule:

In deadEarth, you may only create three characters (https://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?473443-Necro-deadEarth-why-isn-t-this-game-on-anyone-s-quot-Worst-Games-List-quot&p=10915728#post10915728). Ever.

It's deadEarth. That's almost certainly a kindness. (Although that thread is hilarious. Even when reading it through a second time.)

DrewID

[kyoryu]

No different than older editions of D&D, where many times, the only way to hit is to crit.

Except that crits didn't exist in older versions of D&D.

[Frozen_Feet]

Zero assumptions.

All variances other than the target character's HP have been accounted for.


Ridiculous outcomes occur if two mechanically identical hits do not represent equivalent wounds.


There's just no way to have ever-increasing hit points without something breaking.

I'm late to the party, but:

If you hit a wall of wood from the same angle and with the same force as a wall of steel, it will have a different effect.

If Hit Points indeed measure structural integrity (health/toughness/durability) of an object, then it plain makes sense the same hit would have a different effect.

This is quite explicit in rules for attacking inanimate object in later versions of D&D. It is also fairly intuitive if you combine it with the concept of fractionals Glyphstone (IIRC) posed. 8 points of damage against a 8 point target runs it through, where as 8 points of damage against 80 points only goes 10% in.

It logically follows from this that high-level characters are superhumanly tough. The concept of Hit points as mix of "luck, skill, divine favor" etc. as explained in 1st edition AD&D was an attempt to dodge this implication. The reason for this dodginess was to establish that yes, high level characters can still be killed by "mundane" factors (say, falling off a horse) when not in their A-game, to preserve verisimilitude. (Because, as demonstrated by this thread, some people don't dealing with characters jumping off roofs or walking on lava for gits and shiggles. I personally have no trouble dealing with that, so I can use HP as straight durability easy enough.)

[Max_Killjoy]

I am not getting sucked back into this. I made my position clear, no one has been or will be able to change the facts that underlie that position -- D&D Hit Points are blatantly dysfunctional, disconnected, disassociated... and ridiculous -- and that's it.

[thirdkingdom]

Except that crits didn't exist in older versions of D&D.

This is correct.

[1337 b4k4]

I'm late to the party, but:

If you hit a wall of wood from the same angle and with the same force as a wall of steel, it will have a different effect.

If Hit Points indeed measure structural integrity (health/toughness/durability) of an object, then it plain makes sense the same hit would have a different effect.

This is quite explicit in rules for attacking inanimate object in later versions of D&D. It is also fairly intuitive if you combine it with the concept of fractionals Glyphstone (IIRC) posed. 8 points of damage against a 8 point target runs it through, where as 8 points of damage against 80 points only goes 10% in.

It logically follows from this that high-level characters are superhumanly tough. The concept of Hit points as mix of "luck, skill, divine favor" etc. as explained in 1st edition AD&D was an attempt to dodge this implication. The reason for this dodginess was to establish that yes, high level characters can still be killed by "mundane" factors (say, falling off a horse) when not in their A-game, to preserve verisimilitude. (Because, as demonstrated by this thread, some people don't dealing with characters jumping off roofs or walking on lava for gits and shiggles. I personally have no trouble dealing with that, so I can use HP as straight durability easy enough.)

In addition to this, if Mike Tyson right hooks a professional boxer and he right hooks a random amateur off the street, it's perfectly natural that the pro won't necessarily be KOed but the guy off the street will. The experience and natural endurance and toughness of the opponent can absolutely change the outcome of an equally forceful attack. In fact, that's how I prefer to look at the damage values for attack, it's more like the force of the attack rather than the actual count of damage done. We skip converting force to actual damager by subtracting the force from the hit points and scaling hit points with all the factors that go into the toughness/resilience of the target. Why do two people with different levels of HP survive being immolated for different amounts of time? Because while the fire burns just as hot, one person is just more resilient. Burns that killed a lesser man, they managed to survive through sheer toughness and stubbornness. Yes, it's not perfect, but no abstraction is. Any abstraction that doesn't fall apart in the edge cases isn't an abstraction anymore.

It's also worth pointing out too, that like most "crazy" D&D rules, it's really a "later editions of D&D didn't understand the model of the previous editions" problem, more than a problem with the underlying system. OD&D didn't have infinitely scaling HP the way 3e did. After 9th level, you got +2 HP per level as a fighter, period. No CON bonus, no extra HD, just +2. Which means (per my LL books) a 20th level fighter, with PERFECT HD rolls and a max (+3) CON bonus has a mere 121 HP. Falling damage is listed as 1d6 / 10ft with no cap, so your 20th level fighter can die instantly from a height as low as 210ft, and dies every single time at 1210ft or higher. So yeah still more durable than your average real life person, but then again that's also the absolute best a fighter can be, a veritable god among men.. OTOH, and average fighter, with an average CON roll (remember 3d6 in order) will have a +0 bonus, and will have an average roll of 5 on their HD, meaning at level 20 they'll have a meager 67 HP, and thus can instantly die from a height as low as 120 ft, and every time at 670 ft.


I am not getting sucked back into this. I made my position clear, no one has been or will be able to change the facts that underlie that position -- D&D Hit Points are blatantly dysfunctional, disconnected, disassociated... and ridiculous -- and that's it.

And yet, they have served perfectly well for 30+ years of gaming, giving plenty of people a satisfactory experience. So that seems to be a rather strong counter point to your "facts".

[Max_Killjoy]

And yet, they have served perfectly well for 30+ years of gaming, giving plenty of people a satisfactory experience. So that seems to be a rather strong counter point to your "facts".


Jersey Shore lasted multiple seasons, too. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum)

[LudicSavant]

So that seems to be a rather strong counter point

Argumentum ad populum is about as far from a strong point as you can get.

[Milo v3]

I am not getting sucked back into this. I made my position clear, no one has been or will be able to change the facts that underlie that position -- D&D Hit Points are blatantly dysfunctional, disconnected, disassociated... and ridiculous -- and that's it.

Run them as meat points. Not dysfunctional, disconnected, disassociated or ridiculous. Ta'da.

[Jay R]

One pretty silly thing in several systems is aiming requirements on some magic spells. When a spell shoots a blast of fire, ice, electricity, whatever you expect that your character picked a direction and launched whatever sort of zappyness you picked.

Some systems like to put line of sight, line of effect, and the ability to only target "creatures" on these spells. So these spells can't be used to shoot at someone behind a pane of glass, shot into smoke filled rooms, or affect those rice paper walls. It dosen't matter if your fire blast can incinerate a horse or you ice shot can knock over an elephant, rice paper is immune to your mastery of arcane power.

I've never played under a DM that stupid. Have you actually seen this occur? Certainly you can't aim at somebody you can't see, but I can't imagine a GM ruling that a blast didn't go through rice paper (even though it could easily miss the guy on the other side).


Perfect example: GURPS combat (at least the revised 3rd edition rules I played with).

Unless you get a perfect success with your skill roll to attack, your opponent has several defensive skills they can use to avoid it. Which leads to a fight comprised of "oh, I made my attack roll. Oh, they made their defense roll, so nothing happens" until someone manages to land a hit.

Sounds about right for a fight between good fighters. I throw a blow that would hit most opponents, but he knows how to block it, and throws a riposte that might get in on a lot of people, but I parry it, etc.

[georgie_leech]

Here's what I think of as a ridiculous rule:

In deadEarth, you may only create three characters (https://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?473443-Necro-deadEarth-why-isn-t-this-game-on-anyone-s-quot-Worst-Games-List-quot&p=10915728#post10915728). Ever.

I want you to know I lost an entire day to reading this thread, and that "one-armed mutant werewolf **** fungus" is now at the top of my list of "English Phrases I Never Thought Existed."

[Mitth'raw'nuruo]

In the King Arthur Pendragon RPG, it is possible to be so ugly you become bedridden and die.

Perfectly valid rule.It happens in real live. When you weigh in at 92 Stones, you are not getting out of bed. You're not even sitting up without major assistance.

[Keltest]

Perfectly valid rule.It happens in real live. When you weigh in at 92 Stones, you are not getting out of bed. You're not even sitting up without major assistance.

That has less to do with being ugly and more to do with the fact that all of your important body parts aren't working correctly.

[PersonMan]

Run them as meat points. Not dysfunctional, disconnected, disassociated or ridiculous. Ta'da.

He mentioned that as something he doesn't want to do. To paraphrase, he said he didn't want to use the system to represent the sins of Hollywood.


Sounds about right for a fight between good fighters. I throw a blow that would hit most opponents, but he knows how to block it, and throws a riposte that might get in on a lot of people, but I parry it, etc.

I'm not surprised that it does, it's just incredibly boring as a player, at least in my opinion. Watching, reading, or otherwise consuming a fight of dodges, near-misses, parries and blocks is fun, but rolling the same attack over and over again and making no progress isn't.

This is made more egregious due to the fact that at least once the characters in question were all schoolkids. A scene that would normally be 'she smacks him with her backpack and he backs off because he's a bully and ow that backpack hurt' became a 9-second clown fiesta of dodging on both sides.

[Knaight]

That has less to do with being ugly and more to do with the fact that all of your important body parts aren't working correctly.

Also trying to map inverse weight to the appearance stat is all sorts of ludicrous at the best of times and only more bizarre when size is an actual stat in the system to begin with.

[Milo v3]

He mentioned that as something he doesn't want to do. To paraphrase, he said he didn't want to use the system to represent the sins of Hollywood.
That's his problem though. Just because it doesn't match your preferences (which is perfectly fine and reasonable), does not mean that it is ridiculous.

[Kurald Galain]

Run them as meat points. Not dysfunctional, disconnected, disassociated or ridiculous. Ta'da.

Yep, that was the point. Out of the two common interpretations, only one is disassociated or dysfunctional.

[Lacuna Caster]

It's not about making sense. You are as fully functional at 100 HP as 1 HP beyond the fact that you have only 99 more HP to lose at 100. At 0 HP, you're toast...
Seriously? We're still doing this?

Eh, it depends. The important thing, I think, is that it feels like you're making progress. Doing a bunch of HP damage feels like making progress. Breaking a chunk of their armor feels like making progress. Making them spend a bunch of "fatigue points" feels like making progress, potentially. You know? My suspicion is that even if there are a bunch of choices to make in how to block a blow, it will still feel frustrating.

I'm not surprised that it does, it's just incredibly boring as a player, at least in my opinion. Watching, reading, or otherwise consuming a fight of dodges, near-misses, parries and blocks is fun, but rolling the same attack over and over again and making no progress isn't.
Personally, I find this approach to be tedious regardless of whether 'progress' is happening or not. If there's only a single combat action-type you can take (or a single clearly optimal action-type), then play boils down to holding down your finger on the 'hack' button and waiting to see who wins. I don't find Hit Points alleviate that.

And again... block-dodge-parry-wheel-grapple-shove-die is what real combat amounted to, quite frequently. If you attach primary value to realism, then... that's your objective. If you find this dissatisfying, then clearly you had some other value in mind.

[Max_Killjoy]

Run them as meat points. Not dysfunctional, disconnected, disassociated or ridiculous. Ta'da.


That just leads to the "character with 20 arrows in his chest" cartoon moment... it results in one character being able to survive a multitude of woulds that would kill another character many times over... or requires the same mechanically identical attack result (after EVERYTHING has been taken into account) that wounds both characters to map/model very different things... and we're right back to all four of the above adjectives.

[Lacuna Caster]

That just leads to the "character with 20 arrows in his chest" cartoon moment... it results in one character being able to survive a multitude of woulds that would kill another character many times over... or requires the same mechanically identical attack result (after EVERYTHING has been taken into account) that wounds both characters to map/model very different things... and we're right back to all four of the above adjectives.

Seriously? We're still doing this?

[1337 b4k4]

Jersey Shore lasted multiple seasons, too. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum)


Argumentum ad populum is about as far from a strong point as you can get.

If your argument is that a set of rules are objectively dysfunctional then pointing out that those same rules are (and have been) in common usage throughout 30+ years of game play, design and revision is not a fallacious argument, because I'm not arguing that they're popular and therefore not dysfunctional. The rule could be extremely unpopular, but if it has been in continuous use for its intended purpose for 30+ years, that still a strong argument for it not being objectively dysfunctional. My argument is that the rules are used, and have been used exactly as designed for over 30+ years of gaming, which means that they are quite clearly serving whatever purpose they are being put to use for. Objectively dysfunctional rules don't get used, because they don't accomplish the goal they're supposed to be used for.

Or to put it another way, pointing out that millions of people get pain relief from acetaminophen is a perfectly valid counterargument to you claiming that it's an objectively dysfunctional drug because for your back pain it's no better than a placebo. (http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/07/23/acetaminophen-no-better-than-placebo-for-back-pain/) That's not arguing popularity, it's arguing multiple data points of effectiveness. So it is with HP. They are used effectively in multiple games and at multiple tables world wide. That they don't meet the standard of realism and 1:1 mapping to real world effects is 100% a given. But that alone doesn't make them dysfunctional as rules any more than the fact that the same can be said to be true of levels and experience points. If your goal is realism and simulation of the real world as it exists right now, then yes, HP as laid out in D&D is dysfunctional, but only for that specific goal, not in the general sense, just like if my goal is accurate simulation of mental disorders, CoC SAN points are also dysfunctional for that specific goal.


Seriously? We're still doing this?

Such is the consequence of continuing to declare that your opinion and specific goals translate to objective facts in all cases.

[Lacuna Caster]

Or to put it another way, pointing out that millions of people get pain relief from acetaminophen is a perfectly valid counterargument to you claiming that it's an objectively dysfunctional drug because for your back pain it's no better than a placebo. (http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/07/23/acetaminophen-no-better-than-placebo-for-back-pain/) That's not arguing popularity, it's arguing multiple data points of effectiveness...
There are rarely standardised control groups, well-defined performance metrics, or longitudinal follow-up studies done for RPGs in general or specific subsystems thereof. I don't think this is a fair analogy.

[Keltest]

There are rarely standardised control groups, well-defined performance metrics, or longitudinal follow-up studies done for RPGs in general or specific subsystems thereof. I don't think this is a fair analogy.

Why not? Its not like HP is the only system out there. The fact that it continues to be so widespread in spite of alternatives existing seems to suggest that people don't find it so disgustingly unpleasant to use as you seem to be asserting. And there are huge companies who have distributing the game system as their primary goal. Whether or not there are big public studies done, I can guarantee you that thought has been put into this.

[Roughishguy86]

My only question is how do you suggest they keep track of damage in a more realistic way that would suit your needs better? I'm not trying to argue with you because I can completely see what your point is I just don't know of any other way to do it that would work as universally and be as easy to keep track of.

It just seems to me that you just truly don't like the D&D system as a whole which if that's the case I can appreciate that I've found a couple game systems I just cannot play because I don't like the mechanics of them.

As far as ridiculous rules I really dislike the 5E critical hit ruling in that you get to roll your damage twice rather than just multiplying it as in older editions. something about scoring a critical hit and rolling all ones twice rubs me the wrong way.

[Milo v3]

That just leads to the "character with 20 arrows in his chest" cartoon moment... it results in one character being able to survive a multitude of woulds that would kill another character many times over... or requires the same mechanically identical attack result (after EVERYTHING has been taken into account) that wounds both characters to map/model very different things... and we're right back to all four of the above adjectives.

I would disagree that "character with 20 arrows in his chest" is a cartoon moment. "it results in one character being able to survive a multitude of woulds that would kill another character many times over", so? That's not ridiculous, it's just fantastic. Your playing heroes, not average joes. Character's becoming fantastic isn't ridiculous, you may dislike it, but that does not make it dysfunctional, disconnected, disassociated or ridiculous. It just serves a different function than the one you want, it is connected to tropes you dislike, and is associated with tropes you dislike.

[Lacuna Caster]

...Seriously?


Why not? Its not like HP is the only system out there. The fact that it continues to be so widespread in spite of alternatives existing seems to suggest that people don't find it so disgustingly unpleasant to use as you seem to be asserting.
My claims about the suitability of Hit Points as a design mechanic are actually quite narrow- I was saying that if describing combat in such a way as to model physiologically human protagonists is your goal, and if indefinite (or vastly increased) HP-accumulation is a system feature, then other systems exist which can probably perform the former function with either less mental effort and/or mathematical retrofitting.

'Disgustingly unpleasant' is, not, I think, a term I employed, and I did mention that I am quite comfortable with using large HP totals, as long as the action is described in terms of superhuman feats of resilience and durability. Because that is what they comfortably model. (I do find combat with a narrow range of options to be unequivocally tedious, but this is a distinct mechanic from Hit Points, and not necessarily unfixable, given power attacks, grapple checks, total defence, and the like. But that's something of a tangent.)


My only question is how do you suggest they keep track of damage in a more realistic way that would suit your needs better? I'm not trying to argue with you because I can completely see what your point is I just don't know of any other way to do it that would work as universally and be as easy to keep track of.
As suggested earlier, I think the E6 rules do a respectable job of maintaining human-ish levels of physical resilience, simply by capping HP to certain limits. Beyond that, there isn't any way to model damage more realistically that doesn't involve adding more complexity. I fully acknowledge that. (Burning Wheel has a combat system that ticks all the requisite boxes for me. And yes, it has pretty non-trivial complexity.)

I've enjoyed good, tight, focused dungeon-crawlers in the past, so my feelings on D&D are very mixed. Balance concerns weren't really ironed out until recent editions, but what always bugged me most is that, given the advice on fudging outcomes and having a pre-decided campaign structure, then regardless of setting, the dungeon walls were always there. Even if invisible and constructed from peer pressure. There seems to be a certain thawing of said attitudes lately, but I remain cautious.

[Roughishguy86]

I'm not familiar with E6 so I will have to look into that to understand your point more. And I agree to a point that they are focusing o a bit to much on balancing the game which is hampering certain aspects of the game. However I can understand the intentions even if the results are not what I wish they were.

[Kurald Galain]

Seriously? We're still doing this?

Yeah, we just love to repeat ourselves.

Oh, did I mention that how we love to repeat ourselves? Because we love that. To repeat ourselves.

:smallbiggrin:

[Quertus]

Except that crits didn't exist in older versions of D&D.


This is correct.

Um... AFB, but was just reading over 2e rules for modified 20 --> double damage within the past week or so. I don't think I'm quite senile enough yet to be wrong about this.


I've never played under a DM that stupid. Have you actually seen this occur? Certainly you can't aim at somebody you can't see, but I can't imagine a GM ruling that a blast didn't go through rice paper (even though it could easily miss the guy on the other side).

I'm not sure I've ever seen it not occur. But, then, most of my DMs haven't needed the excuse of being able to read a rule to randomly **** the players, so that doesn't say much.



That just leads to the "character with 20 arrows in his chest" cartoon moment... it results in one character being able to survive a multitude of woulds that would kill another character many times over... or requires the same mechanically identical attack result (after EVERYTHING has been taken into account) that wounds both characters to map/model very different things... and we're right back to all four of the above adjectives.


Now, let's at least use our words consistently. A planet having more meat points than a dragon than a cow than a snail is in no way any of those adjectives.

A human fighter having more meat points than a dragon may be silly, and possibly even ridiculous (depends on who you ask), but I think you'll be hard pressed to apply the standard definitions of those other adjectives in a community-acceptable way.

[kyoryu]

Um... AFB, but was just reading over 2e rules for modified 20 --> double damage within the past week or so. I don't think I'm quite senile enough yet to be wrong about this.

Depends on your definition of "older editions". I draw the line at 1e and B/X.

[Roughishguy86]

I only began playing after 2E so I have no knowledge of anything older but what I meant by older is anything previous to 5E that I have played.

[Knaight]

That just leads to the "character with 20 arrows in his chest" cartoon moment... it results in one character being able to survive a multitude of woulds that would kill another character many times over... or requires the same mechanically identical attack result (after EVERYTHING has been taken into account) that wounds both characters to map/model very different things... and we're right back to all four of the above adjectives.

Exactly. The one character survives a multitude of wounds that kill another many times over. It's not realistic, the other 3 adjectives are dodged.


Why not? Its not like HP is the only system out there. The fact that it continues to be so widespread in spite of alternatives existing seems to suggest that people don't find it so disgustingly unpleasant to use as you seem to be asserting. And there are huge companies who have distributing the game system as their primary goal. Whether or not there are big public studies done, I can guarantee you that thought has been put into this.
Increasing HP D&D style is pretty rare though.

[thirdkingdom]

Um... AFB, but was just reading over 2e rules for modified 20 --> double damage within the past week or so. I don't think I'm quite senile enough yet to be wrong about this.

Do you have a page reference for this? I was curious and looked through my 2e Player's Handbook, but the only reference I could find was on p. 90-91 stating that a 20 is always a hit and a 1 is always a miss.


Depends on your definition of "older editions". I draw the line at 1e and B/X.

Hahahaha! Yeah, I'm the same way. I totally don't think of 2e as being in the same category.

[Talakeal]

Do you have a page reference for this? I was curious and looked through my 2e Player's Handbook, but the only reference I could find was on p. 90-91 stating that a 20 is always a hit and a 1 is always a miss.



Hahahaha! Yeah, I'm the same way. I totally don't think of 2e as being in the same category.

Afaik is an optional rule in the dmg. Roll a natural twenty and you get a bonus attack, stacking indefinetly.

Which, btw, means that if you need a natural 20 to hit you only have a five percent chance of doing extra damage on a critical, so the inital post on the subject which states that you will always crit on a hit if you need a 20 to hit them is somewhat misleading.

[Telok]

I've never played under a DM that stupid. Have you actually seen this occur? Certainly you can't aim at somebody you can't see, but I can't imagine a GM ruling that a blast didn't go through rice paper (even though it could easily miss the guy on the other s

It's a pretty big thing in D&Ds 4 and 5. Multiple threads and f.a.q.s apparently. Along with some rather silly rules on hiding and being able to spot invisible things.

[Cluedrew]

OK, for the record I have my own opinions on HP. I am not going to voice them because I think we all need to shut up about HP. At least long enough for everyone to calm down.

My most ridiculous rules are from Roll for Shoes system:
All starting characters are identical.
You only get XP when you fail.
You can only get a skill in a situation in which you would use it.
And those just correspond to 3 of the ~7 rules in the game.

Oddly, despite the fact I would describe them as ridiculous, they aren't bad. Just strange and rather silly.

Ridiculous as in "funny" not as in "what were you thinking".

[Quertus]

Do you have a page reference for this? I was curious and looked through my 2e Player's Handbook, but the only reference I could find was on p. 90-91 stating that a 20 is always a hit and a 1 is always a miss.

Still AFB - I might get home tonight.


Afaik is an optional rule in the dmg. Roll a natural twenty and you get a bonus attack, stacking indefinetly.

Which, btw, means that if you need a natural 20 to hit you only have a five percent chance of doing extra damage on a critical, so the inital post on the subject which states that you will always crit on a hit if you need a 20 to hit them is somewhat misleading.

yes, that sounds like the optional rule. The default rule is modified 20 = x2 dmg.

I even discussed it with a friend, who had feared it was an optional or house rule he'd played with in an old group, and was relieved when I showed it was the default rule.

Honesty, I'll get back to my books some day.

[Talakeal]

Still AFB - I might get home tonight.



yes, that sounds like the optional rule. The default rule is modified 20 = x2 dmg.

I even discussed it with a friend, who had feared it was an optional or house rule he'd played with in an old group, and was relieved when I showed it was the default rule.

Honesty, I'll get back to my books some day.

Looking at the book I see that both of those are listed as possible variants of the same optional rule on page 86 of the 2e DMG.

I would be very surprised if there are any non optional critical hit rules in 2e, in the players handbook or otherwise.

[neriractor]

OK, for the record I have my own opinions on HP. I am not going to voice them because I think we all need to shut up about HP. At least long enough for everyone to calm down.

My most ridiculous rules are from Roll for Shoes system:
All starting characters are identical.
You only get XP when you fail.
You can only get a skill in a situation in which you would use it.
And those just correspond to 3 of the ~7 rules in the game.

Oddly, despite the fact I would describe them as ridiculous, they aren't bad. Just strange and rather silly.

Ridiculous as in "funny" not as in "what were you thinking".

the rule that says you only XP when you fail seems realistic enough, there is a reason people say defeat teaches you the most. :smallsmile:

that said, it would be a pretty painful mechanic in a combat heavy game :smallbiggrin:

[Sun Elemental]

I'm taking aim at the fact that D&D-type accumulating Hit Points cannot be explained in a way that doesn't do one or more of the following:
1) Require the characters to become literally superhuman as they rise in level, taking a multitude of wounds that would easily kill lower characters.
2) Conflict and overlap with the other mechanics of the game (the aforementioned muddle).
3) Totally diverge from any attempt to map/model, making HP a pure game mechanic totally disassociated from the actual game "world".
So far, in over 30 years of involvement in the hobby, and certainly in this thread, no one has offered an explanation that doesn't hit one or more of these fatal flaws.

#1 isn't a fatal flaw, unless you consider many real-world myths flawed stories. Most of the heroes of the Trojan War were higher level than the foot soldiers. Seriously, why is wrong with super-individuals?
I don't care if HP is morale, luck, meat, whatever. (I personally play it as 75% adrenaline, 25% meat.) Just accept that HP is a necessary mechanic.

On with the ridiculous rules!

[Bohandas]

That just leads to the "character with 20 arrows in his chest" cartoon moment...

What's really ironic about this is that there's actually an rpg out there designed to simulate cartoons (Toon: The Cartoon Roleplaying Game by SJ Games) and it doesn't have any mechanic for increasing hp, so you're limited to 12 arrows in the chest absolute max

[Kami2awa]

On the (frankly now very tiresome) hit point argument, I personally like them, whether it is D&D's system of flat HP loss or slightly more complex ones like WoD's Bashing/Lethal/Ag system.

The reason for this is that systems that use other more realistic methods of tracking injury become overcomplicated very quickly, with the need to track damage across different hit locations, organs or whatever (2d6 spleen damage...), plus additional counters for bleeding and so on.

I don't particularly want to use such an overcomplicated system, and I certainly don't want to have to teach it to new players. On the other hand, practically every video game has a "hit point" system (in fact I suspect this may be an idea taken directly from tabletop gaming), and so the idea is very easy to explain to a new player.

This complexity then often runs into a wall when it has to deal with unusual damage like falling, fire, poison, or magical effects, or creatures with non-humanoid bodies. D&D monsters have so many body plans that you'd probably need individual, exception-based rules for every single one (just where is/are a carrion crawler's heart(s)? What's the effect of a critical hit to its spiracles?)

[PersonMan]

Personally, I find this approach to be tedious regardless of whether 'progress' is happening or not. If there's only a single combat action-type you can take (or a single clearly optimal action-type), then play boils down to holding down your finger on the 'hack' button and waiting to see who wins. I don't find Hit Points alleviate that.

I see where you're coming from. Personally, I've found 'I keep attacking' to be enjoyable enough for me if I'm playing the right type of character, so I don't have this issue, but I can completely understand why it could be boring.


And again... block-dodge-parry-wheel-grapple-shove-die is what real combat amounted to, quite frequently. If you attach primary value to realism, then... that's your objective. If you find this dissatisfying, then clearly you had some other value in mind.

Yup. I don't, though. While more realistic fighting is nice, for me it's a secondary thing - if the mechanics are fun, then they can be fiddled with to try and more accurately represent melee combat, but eventually it goes from 'fun' to 'no longer enjoyable'.

It helps that I generally prefer the larger-than-life type of combat anyways, with maneuvers like 'jump 15 feet into the air and slash at the giant's face' that would be hindered by more realism-based mechanics.

[Frozen_Feet]

#1 isn't a fatal flaw, unless you consider many real-world myths flawed stories. Most of the heroes of the Trojan War were higher level than the foot soldiers. Seriously, why is wrong with super-individuals?

It's also worth noting that super-individuals are more a factor of the leveling system than hitpoints themselves. So the complaint is somewhat misplaced. Especially in later editions of D&D, where HP bloat is a lesser factor to character invincibility than rampant spell use.

Indeed, many games dodge the complaint simply by capping hitpoints or level advancement below superhuman.



On the other hand, practically every video game has a "hit point" system (in fact I suspect this may be an idea taken directly from tabletop gaming), and so the idea is very easy to explain to a new player.

Your suspicion is correct. D&D invented hit-points-as-we-know them and due to quirk of computing history, it was copied over to all sorts of games.

That's why hit points don't qualify as a ridiculous mechanic. They're literally second simplest method of modeling injury right after "one hit kills". That simplicity is why they're still more common than alternatives.

The actual ridiculousness again lies elsewhere. When characters become superhuman, it's often due to character advancement rules or poorly calibrated damage rules. The latter is also often the reason in the other extreme end, where characters are too frail; the 3.x D&D "housecat problem" stems from this.

---

Speaking of other ridiculous rules, a somewhat meta example is Feats in d20, but the ridiculousness doesn't become apparent before you are well familiar with the system.

Some people and homebrewers on this forum have said "feats are not class features". This is, in fact, completely opposite to truth, as becomes painfully obvious if you read the core rules in the d20 system reference document.

Many character classes, Fighter most notably but also Monk, Ranger and Rogue as well as many Epic classes, get many of their most iconic abilities from earlier editions (such as Weapon specialization) as feats, and indeed many feats are imported class featutes pr alternate class features from earlier editions (such as Leadership). But because the designers couldn't decide how much a feat should be worth, they completely dropped the ball on this. And that's why d20 became an ungodly mess of redundant rules frameworks, where Feats, Flaws, Traits, Class Features, Alternate Class Features, Racial Substitution Levels and what have you all fill the same design space of modular character creation blocks, at wildly inconsistent cost-versus-benefit. All of which serve to turn a nominally class-based system into an overly-complicated point-buy-system.

[Jay R]

What's really ironic about this is that there's actually an rpg out there designed to simulate cartoons (Toon: The Cartoon Roleplaying Game by SJ Games) and it doesn't have any mechanic for increasing hp, so you're limited to 12 arrows in the chest absolute max

That's because after you Fall Down with X's in your eyes, you reappear on screen three minutes later perfectly whole.

But if I'm running the game, and a character is hit by multiple arrows, she'll have a hundred arrows in her when she falls. That's just basic understanding of cartoons.

[Max_Killjoy]

Just accept that HP is a necessary mechanic.


I would, but I don't like lying to myself. (Again, regarding specifically the D&D-style ever-increasing HP.)

[Cluedrew]

that said, it would be a pretty painful mechanic in a combat heavy game :smallbiggrin:Combat is very non-lethal as there is no damage system.

...

How did that not make the list the first time? Roll for Shoes doesn't have a damage system. It doesn't does have a lot of things, I went back and counted, there are only 7 rules in the game. You can fit the entire system on an index card.

[Grod_The_Giant]

In Exalted 3e, a game about kung-fu demigods beating up actual gods and taking their lunch money, switching weapons takes an action and gives you a defense penalty. Not ridiculous so much as wildly off-tone.

In Fate, things like cover might well give you no bonus whatsoever unless you spend your own resources (fate points or actions). I know people argue this point sometimes, but to me it's always made the environment feel kind of like a cardboard background.

[SimonMoon6]

Many attempts to speed up combat or otherwise "streamline" a system end up with these sorts of wonky quirks.

The strange thing is that the guy who designed TORG with this strange rule had previously designed Mayfair's DC Heroes RPG which also used a "one roll for both attack and damage" system but which handled it very differently. In the DC Heroes RPG, it was basically (I'm oversimplifying here) the case that the amount by which you hit someone would determine how much damage you would do to them. So, if you barely hit someone, you would do a minimal amount of damage (or none if they were really hard to hurt) but if you hit them with a much bigger die roll than you needed, you would do a lot more damage. In other words, it worked exactly like I would want such a system to work.

The TORG gurus even commented later about the "glass ninja" problem and offered up some optional house rules to change this, but they didn't like the idea of having it work even vaguely in the DC Heroes way because they didn't want Dexterity to take over the role of Toughness (their Constitution score) which also served to reduce damage taken. If both stats reduced damage taken and Dexterity also made it harder for a character to be hit, they argued, then Dexterity was twice as useful as Toughness. I'm not sure I agree with that exactly, but balancing Dexterity can be a hard thing to do in games where it actually has a significant impact, especially in games where it's not just a defensive stat but also an offensive stat (making it easier to hit people), unlike in D&D melee combat where STR is used.

[Max_Killjoy]

In Exalted 3e, a game about kung-fu demigods beating up actual gods and taking their lunch money, switching weapons takes an action and gives you a defense penalty. Not ridiculous so much as wildly off-tone.

In Fate, things like cover might well give you no bonus whatsoever unless you spend your own resources (fate points or actions). I know people argue this point sometimes, but to me it's always made the environment feel kind of like a cardboard background.


In many "story-centric" systems, EVERYTHING is a cardboard background in service to "The Story".