[D20]Assumptions and Metagaming itP

[Gan The Grey]

I've recently been following the current falling damage thread, and I found myself sympathizing with one side of the argument almost entirely, particularly the side that supports the idea that players shouldn't go jumping off cliffs simply because they know they have enough HP to soak the damage.

The more I read though...the more I started to uncover my own assumptions on the subject of metagaming, and it really made me wonder if other playgrounders stances on the subject were the result of a conscious decision or unconscious assumption.

Most of my questions revolve around damage and HP and the metagamingness (word?) of our thoughts on those numbers. So, on with the questions I hope will spur a healthy debate.

1. Do you consider having your character be aware of the specific numbers written on his character sheet to be metagaming? Ex. Bob the Barbarian knows he is 6th level and has 73 HP. Is this metagaming? If not, how can you justify this knowledge?

2. Do you consider knowing that a specific weapon or fall does 2d6 damage to be metagaming? Ex. Bob the Barbarian knows that a shortsword and a 10-foot fall does the same amount of damage. Is this metagaming? If not, how can you justify this knowledge?

3. How do you treat damage that leaves you with a remaining amount of positive HP? Is a confirmed hit from a sword an actual, bloody hit, or does it simply sap an amount of endurance from the target? When a character hits the ground after a fall, is this actual physical damage or just a hit to his luck or stamina?

My own thoughts:

1. Specifically being able to quantify the numbers on your character sheet as in-character knowledge to me is metagaming. The only way to really know these numbers is to connect them to measurable world physics. Like knowing how strong you are by how much you can lift. This doesn't tell you that your Strength is 15, but that you can lift so and so amount of pounds. Bob doesn't know his level or HP. He just knows he's been around, fought a few battles.

2. Knowing the traits of a weapon beyond the actual physical real-world attributes (i.e. weight, length) is metagaming. As has been repeatedly said on this forum, HP are an abstraction. Damage must also be an abstraction. On another related note, I find knowing that a shortsword and a 10-foot fall do the same amount of damage to also be metagaming, regardless of whether you know the damage dice. The only way of knowing how much damage a fall or a sword does is to examine its effect on an object or person, and (almost) universally, a sword to the heart or fall from 200 feet is fatal. Expecting otherwise, regardless of level, is metagaming. Just because you can take on ten bears without breaking a sweat doesn't mean you can take a 200 foot fall. They aren't even remotely related.

3. I tend to view damage that leaves a positive amount of HP to sap stamina or skill. This is why I have such a problem with high-level characters being able to survive a fall from great heights. How do you 'out-skill' the ground? Sure, sliding down walls, falling into snow, hitting every tree limb on the way down...I might fly with those. But falling off a cliff into open air, too far away from the cliff wall, onto sharp rocks? Death, or something almost as bad.

I know the system tend to break down past 6th level. Really, I'm just curious about your assumptions about character knowledge and how that affects your gameplay.

[hamishspence]

In the Truenaming section of Tome of Magic, it discusses the issue of why somebody's truename gets harder to pronounce as they get more powerful "higher level" and does suggest that levels are a game abstraction that people in the game world don't actually perceive.

Maybe they think of Joe the Archmage as a "great wizard" with the ability to cast "very mighty spells" but even wizards won't necessarily see spells as "1st level to 9th level" and their own ability to cast 9th level spells as "them being a 17th level wizard".

[The Rose Dragon]

I agree with you on what is metagaming and what is not.

I disagree with you on that HPs are an abstraction. If someone with a sword's attack roll exceeds your AC, it is a hit. If you get completely immersed in lava, the HPs you lose are a result of your flesh burning alive (and after a few rounds, due to you drowning to death). If you fall from a million miles and survive the 120 hit points you lose, you are simply that much of a badass to walk and fight after being subjected to a force that would break your bones and turn your body into something unrecognizable as human. Any other interpretation means you have to come up with exceptions to exceptions to exceptions.

That means you are Wolverine at levels 10 and beyond. You should learn to roll with it.

EDIT: Or you can accept that D&D is mechanically a horrible system and start playing other systems instead. I'm fine either way.

[PId6]

1. Do you consider having your character be aware of the specific numbers written on his character sheet to be metagaming? Ex. Bob the Barbarian knows he is 6th level and has 73 HP. Is this metagaming? If not, how can you justify this knowledge?

Probably not in those terms. He might know that he's stronger and tougher than Bill the Barbarian down the street (who's only 5th level and has 62 HP), from previous fights or from just knowing the guy, but he wouldn't think in terms of "level" or "hit points." Those are just game abstractions.

2. Do you consider knowing that a specific weapon or fall does 2d6 damage to be metagaming? Ex. Bob the Barbarian knows that a shortsword and a 10-foot fall does the same amount of damage. Is this metagaming? If not, how can you justify this knowledge?

I'd say that he would know in general how much they do, but not in game terms. He would know that, for example, getting hit by a shortsword hurts about the same as falling from 10 ft up, having experienced both repeatedly before and seen others in similar situations. It would be fairly vague knowledge though, since there is a level of variance with both types of damage, but he would have a general idea of each.

3. How do you treat damage that leaves you with a remaining amount of positive HP? Is a confirmed hit from a sword an actual, bloody hit, or does it simply sap an amount of endurance from the target? When a character hits the ground after a fall, is this actual physical damage or just a hit to his luck or stamina?

A little bit of both, but mostly actual hits. I might treat minor hits (< 20%) as "minor scratch on the chest" or "cut in the arm," major hits (20% - 50%) are "painful strike on the shoulder" or "gash on the chest," and near-fatal hits (50% +) as "impaled in the stomach" or similar. Higher HP just means you're more likely to get "minor scratches" than "painful strikes," unless the opposition is similarly skilled at combat.

Basically, amount of actual bodily damage will be based on percentage of hit points taken, and higher HP means less likely to suffer severe hits, whether that's because of luck, toughness, or whatever you want. For falling, it'd be the same; with higher HP, you're tough or lucky enough to take less harm from the fall.

[Gan The Grey]

I agree with you on what is metagaming and what is not.

I disagree with you on that HPs are an abstraction. If someone with a sword's attack roll exceeds your AC, it is a hit. If you get completely immersed in lava, the HPs you lose are a result of your flesh burning alive (and after a few rounds, due to you drowning to death). If you fall from a million miles and survive the 120 hit points you lose, you are simply that much of a badass to walk and fight after being subjected to a force that would break your bones and turn your body into something unrecognizable as human. Any other interpretation means you have to come up with exceptions to exceptions to exceptions.

That means you are Wolverine at levels 10 and beyond. You should learn to roll with it.

EDIT: Or you can accept that D&D is mechanically a horrible system and start playing other systems instead. I'm fine either way.

I disagree with your disagreement, but I agree with your reasons. I think HP are an abstraction, but I don't like the way that lava and falls are treated. Falling should do the same percentage of damage regardless of level, and lava should just flat out kill you without magical protection. Going up in level doesn't make your body turn to literally stone, you just get more skillful.

IMHO. I still heart you. Wink.

[Prime32]

1. Do you consider having your character be aware of the specific numbers written on his character sheet to be metagaming? Ex. Bob the Barbarian knows he is 6th level and has 73 HP. Is this metagaming? If not, how can you justify this knowledge?

He shouldn't know the exact figure, but he should be able to tell what he can survive from past experience, and very roughly what percentage of hp he has left.

2. Do you consider knowing that a specific weapon or fall does 2d6 damage to be metagaming? Ex. Bob the Barbarian knows that a shortsword and a 10-foot fall does the same amount of damage. Is this metagaming? If not, how can you justify this knowledge?

"I can survive about 10 stab wounds from guys with biceps that big. I can survive about ten falls. Huh."

2. Knowing the traits of a weapon beyond the actual physical real-world attributes (i.e. weight, length) is metagaming.

"That weapon is big. I bet it hurts more than weapons which aren't big."
"That weapon is pointy. I bet my shirt constructed to resist stab wounds (ie. DR/piercing) will protect me from it."
"That weapon has a massive head. It's probably hard to get a good hit with it, but if it does it would be nasty (ie. low threat range, high crit modifier)"
"That weapon is serrated. It probably leaves messy wounds which are hard to heal."

As has been repeatedly said on this forum, HP are an abstraction. Damage must also be an abstraction. On another related note, I find knowing that a shortsword and a 10-foot fall do the same amount of damage to also be metagaming, regardless of whether you know the damage dice. The only way of knowing how much damage a fall or a sword does is to examine its effect on an object or person, and (almost) universally, a sword to the heart or fall from 200 feet is fatal. Expecting otherwise, regardless of level, is metagaming. Just because you can take on ten bears without breaking a sweat doesn't mean you can take a 200 foot fall. They aren't even remotely related.

"Regardless of level"? So after Son Goku blocks a planet-busting laser with his face, he dies by falling off a roof? "Universally" applies in the real world, where the highest-level person ever was level 7. Even pre-epic, the highest-level D&D characters are supposed to be exactly 96 times beyond the peak of human ability.


EDIT:

I disagree with your disagreement, but I agree with your reasons. I think HP are an abstraction, but I don't like the way that lava and falls are treated. Falling should do the same percentage of damage regardless of level, and lava should just flat out kill you without magical protection. Going up in level doesn't make your body turn to literally stone, you just get more skillful.

Huh? Why should getting crushed by the ground be different from getting crushed by the tarrasque? Or falling into lava different from a dragon breathing lava on you?

[Malificus]

1. Do you consider having your character be aware of the specific numbers written on his character sheet to be metagaming? Ex. Bob the Barbarian knows he is 6th level and has 73 HP. Is this metagaming? If not, how can you justify this knowledge?

2. Do you consider knowing that a specific weapon or fall does 2d6 damage to be metagaming? Ex. Bob the Barbarian knows that a shortsword and a 10-foot fall does the same amount of damage. Is this metagaming? If not, how can you justify this knowledge?

3. How do you treat damage that leaves you with a remaining amount of positive HP? Is a confirmed hit from a sword an actual, bloody hit, or does it simply sap an amount of endurance from the target? When a character hits the ground after a fall, is this actual physical damage or just a hit to his luck or stamina?

1. As such, in character yes. Though BtB probably should understand the concepts in his own way. BtB is tough, he can handle more hits than those under him. In fact, BtB is better overall than those under him. he can attack faster than them, hold his drink better, etc... Even if they are physically as strong as him.

2. Bob knows he can take both, and about how much they hurt. He can fall, and he can be hit. he knows a hit can dig at vitals (crit), while a fall is a fall (with no crits). Bob can also take less damage if he jumps down, rather than falling.

3. Bob is physically hurt, but it is not serious, Bob can still fight! If BtB were to hit zero, he would be in bad shape. But Bob is not tired, just closer to death. If BtB were using the Vitality and Wounds variant, he would get fatigued by physical damage, but in this world, he fights at his best until he has nearly fallen.

[The Rose Dragon]

As the rules are written, to make a case for HP being an abstraction, you have to make exceptions to exceptions to exceptions ad nauseaum until it is an exercise in futility. It is more logical to assume the most straightforward explanation that fits the rules, i.e. that you are freakishly durable and have a healing factor that rivals Wolverine's.

As the rules are intended? I have no idea, since I cannot ask WotC whether they have any idea how poor a system they created and whether it deviates from their expectations.

EDIT: I am responding to Gan's last post, not anyone else.

[Curmudgeon]

There's nothing preventing the DM from keeping track of hit points, and just using approximations like "you're hurt a lot". If you're worried about player knowledge creeping too much into player actions, just reduce that knowledge. This just keeps things consistent: after all, the DM doesn't typically tell the players how many hit points an enemy has left.

[hamishspence]

So- the DM has all the character's hitpoints written down, rolls behind a screen for damage, and says "Oooh, that's gonna leave a mark."?

Would certainly encourage caution in the players.

[Morithias]

I believe Shadowrun actually has a rule for this. It is comedically called the "Chunky Salsa Rule" e.g. anything that would make your head be like chunky salsa in the real world, kills you. Regardless of what page #54 and hit points say.

It's probably something I would agree with using in most D&D games. Push comes to shove, I say whip out the nice old "massive damage" charts. You took 120 damage? Well good news! Roll a save. (make sure to use the tougher variants on the rule).

[Boci]

There's nothing preventing the DM from keeping track of hit points, and just using approximations like "you're hurt a lot". If you're worried about player knowledge creeping too much into player actions, just reduce that knowledge. This just keeps things consistent: after all, the DM doesn't typically tell the players how many hit points an enemy has left.

Yes, but the DM does know how much damage the PCs do to the monsters. If the PCs cannot be trusted to not metagame how many hitpoints they have then I think the DM needs to be a bit more subtle than just suddenly saying "I am no longer going to tell you that"

It's probably something I would agree with using in most D&D games. Push comes to shove, I say whip out the nice old "massive damage" charts. You took 120 damage? Well good news! Roll a save. (make sure to use the tougher variants on the rule).

Problem is, at higher levels too often using massive damage rules results in the need for a save every attack.

[Gan The Grey]

Prime32, I'm more interested in knowing you thoughts on my questions, not your thoughts on my thoughts. But since you asked, I'll explain my logic.

"That weapon is big. I bet it hurts more than weapons which aren't big."
"That weapon is pointy. I bet my shirt constructed to resist stab wounds (ie. DR/piercing) will protect me from it."
"That weapon has a massive head. It's probably hard to get a good hit with it, but if it does it would be nasty (ie. low threat range, high crit modifier)"
"That weapon is serrated. It probably leaves messy wounds which are hard to heal."

I agree with all of these. Completely. My problem is not with logic, but using knowledge of specific numbers, like the shortsword doing 1d6 and the longsword doing 1d8, to support your logic across various aspects of the game.

"Regardless of level"? So after Son Goku blocks a planet-busting laser with his face, he dies by falling off a roof? "Universally" applies in the real world, where the highest-level person ever was level 7. Even pre-epic, the highest-level D&D characters are supposed to be 96 times beyond the peak of human ability.

There is a reason why I included the (almost) before I said universally. And even in D&D, almost universally holds true. The only way a character can 'know' they can survive a sword to the heart or a 200 foot fall is to see it be done or to do it personally, and (almost) universally, everyone they have encountered has most likely not been able to do so. Without that experience, thinking otherwise is metagaming.

Your Goku example is an extreme example, and one that doesn't include enough information to adequately make a judgment. Is he immune to this type of damage? Was he protected in some way? Plus...you are talking about fiction not modeled after any rules save the writers personal interests. It is well within his rights to have Goku block something with his head, and then fall off a roof and die.

Of course, I'm sure there is a system out there that totally nullifies what I just said...

EDIT:
Huh? Why should getting crushed by the ground be different from getting crushed by the tarrasque? Or falling into lava different from a dragon breathing lava on you?

Because it is? You can't really avoid the ground when you are falling towards it. There many reasons why the Tarrasque didn't COMPLETELY crush you, like rolling partially out of the way. A previous poster viewed damage as a percentage of HP. Your increased skill saved you. You could argue that a fall could be treated the same way, but I personally, as a DM, have a hard time doing that.

[Zeta Kai]

Maybe they think of Joe the Archmage as a "great wizard" with the ability to cast "very mighty spells" but even wizards won't necessarily see spells as "1st level to 9th level" and their own ability to cast 9th level spells as "them being a 17th level wizard".

Now, that's just silly. Sure, a wizard is unlikely to say "I'm at 17th level, with an INT of 34." But a spell's level have very obvious in-game aspects, that cannot be simply glazed over, & would be easily noticed by those smarty-pants wizards.

All functional wizards would surely notice that a magic missile spell would take up 1 page in their book, whereas a copy of fireball would always take up 3 pages, & gate would take up 9. A scroll of enervation would be cheaper to buy than a copy of energy drain. Summon monster VII calls different & less powerful monsters than SM6. These aren't metagame values, these numbers are glaring quantifications within the game's universe, just as a glaive has more reach than a dagger.

If a wizard missed these facts in-game, then I'd say that they should hand in their spellbook, because they're too dumb to cast anything with it.

[Kurald Galain]

(1) yes, by definition.

(2) yes, knowing the specific values is metagaming, but knowing that they are about the same is not.

(3) usually cuts and bruises, because "reducing plot armor" doesn't translate well into character perception.

[Boci]

Because it is? You can't really avoid the ground when you are falling towards it. There many reasons why the Tarrasque didn't COMPLETELY crush you, like rolling partially out of the way.

Fair example. What about the lava one?

[Prime32]

Your Goku example is an extreme example, and one that doesn't include enough information to adequately make a judgment. Is he immune to this type of damage? Was he protected in some way? Plus...you are talking about fiction not modeled after any rules save the writers personal interests. It is well within his rights to have Goku block something with his head, and then fall off a roof and die.

Nah, he's just crazy-tough. "Hit points" in the series (and a few others) are explained by your spiritual energy radiating from your body, which blunts damage by cancelling it out, but some of it is lost in the process. The more skilled you are the more energy you have.

[Gan The Grey]

Fair example. What about the lava one?

As a stationary environmental hazard, lava is either there or not there. You are either in it or not. Granted, it might not be very deep or it might be extremely deep, immersing you to various depths. But since I personally have NO clue how quickly lava would eat through a human body, I'm more apt to just say it kills you. Since being too close to quickly flowing lava can cause you to burst into flames from the radiant heat, this judgment doesn't bother me.

As for the dragon? You are talking about something that has varying degrees of power. Not that lava doesn't, its just that D&D rarely makes distinction between lava temperatures. AFB but I think the damage is set in the DMG. As for the dragon breath, its potency is different based on dragon age, and I view this as how hot they can get it and how dense the expulsed flame is and how accurate the breath was. Plus, you get the added benefit of not being completely immersed in it due to being able to dodge out of the way.

Nah, he's just crazy-tough. "Hit points" in the series (and a few others) are explained by your spiritual energy radiating from your body, which blunts damage by cancelling it out, but some of it is lost in the process. The more skilled you are the more energy you have.

I guess they kinda treat HP as DR then. I never really got into DBZ. WAY to much power escalation for me. Worse than reading a DC comic book.

[Aroka]

If PCs aren't supposed to see jumping off cliffs as a viable option, the game system shouldn't make it one.

There's a slew of great RPGs - far better than any edition of D&D in any respect - that don't make it a viable option.

If I'm playing a game of Kratos-level ridiculous heroes (like D&D), I expect the rules to model that; if I'm playing a game of heroes constrained, at least to some extent, by real physics, I expect the rules to model that.

D&D is a game; if a player isn't supposed to choose actions with knowledge of the numbers, the player has to not know the numbers. Expecting people to pretend they don't know the numbers is crazy - once you know them, you can't un-know them. You can't make decisions and not use the pertinent information you've already acquired, even if you're intentionally going against what the information suggests - that's still using the information to make the decision.

1. Silly question. The PCs don't have in-characters knowledge of the numbers, but the player's decisions for what the PC does are supposed to be informed by them. What he PCs do have is knowledge from experience - they can survive being blasted with dragon's breath and thrown off cliffs.

2. If Bob the Barbarian has 50 hit points, he knows he's got little to fear from a single axe-swing, for whatever reason. He's not going to be very afraid of running past an armed goblin and leaving himself open for an attack, unless he knows the goblin is likely to have some weird trick. It doesn't need to be explained in-character; hit points are a meta-game concept. A better question is "How the heck can anyone survive being hit with an axe without any real effects?" D&D just doesn't model that. It's not a game where that stuff matters - you're so damned tough you don't suffer injuries until you're knocked down, or someone's using a special ability.

And if Bob the Barbarian has 400 hit points, he know he can take a dip in lava and come out scorched but fine. That's just how the world works - because it's not a real world, it's a story with little focus on realism. When he's about to take that dip, he knows he won't perish, because it's just some lava.

3. It doesn't matter. I describe it as whatever comes to mind. D&D characters' performances are equally unaffected by bruises as by spears through their gut. A critical wound will get a more impressive description. That's it.

A single attack roll isn't even a single attack, necessarily (this was more true in AD&D, where combat rounds were longer). It may be a series of fast dagger-jabs, or several bashes with a mace, or whatever.

The correct frame of reference is traditional action heroes. Throughout the movie, they fall off buildings,, get shot, get beaten, get exploded, but it never really impairs their performance in any significant way. Sure, your character's leg may be broken, but unless someone used a special ability, you can move just as fast as usual, and even run. You're a hero, that's what you do. Both of your eyes may be swelling shut from the bruise you got from the dragon smashing its tail into your face, but it doesn't affect your vision, because - in the absence of some special ability - it's not been dramatically called for.

If I want more realism - and I usually do - I use a more realistic system. D&D is for heroes that take a beating like movie characters played by Bruce Willis, Arnold Schwarzenegger, or Sylvester Stallone - they don't even slow down.

Games like RuneQuest, The Riddle of Steel, GURPS, and Artesia: AKW model injuries by location, and have a "resolution" where damage really, concretely means various types of physical trauma being successfully inflicted on you, and your ability to continue heroing about is reduced as you get hurt - indeed, you're not supposed to be the 80s action hero who ignores lethal pummelings, but a somewhat more realistic sort of hero who prefers to avoid or mitigate injury. (Even though most of those games are still capable of creating incredibly damage-resistant characters if you care for it.)

Because it is? You can't really avoid the ground when you are falling towards it. There many reasons why the Tarrasque didn't COMPLETELY crush you, like rolling partially out of the way. A previous poster viewed damage as a percentage of HP. Your increased skill saved you. You could argue that a fall could be treated the same way, but I personally, as a DM, have a hard time doing that.

I think this is what The Rose Dragon means with exceptions upon exceptions. They grow indefensible, and they're just ad hoc explanations that don't really stand up.

Can you explain, for instance, why getting stomped by the tarrasque (with a regular attack, since it doesn't feel like wasting a full action to CDG you) while unconscious doesn't kill you? Are you rolling to avoid the hit while unconscious? And why can't you roll to mitigate the damage of falling a great distance? Why can't there be equally many reasons why the fall at terminal velocity didn't kill you? Instead of rolling, you hit something soft.

Now, that's just silly. Sure, a wizard is unlikely to say "I'm at 17th level, with an INT of 34." But a spell's level have very obvious in-game aspects, that cannot be simply glazed over, & would be easily noticed by those smarty-pants wizards.

Yeah. Considering arcane magic is a pretty academical study, it seems reasonable to assume that spells are, indeed, divided to "circles" or "grades" or "sephiroths" or something. It's not rare to find these in-character groupings in various fantasy settings. A "mage of the ninth circle" could be a Wiz17 or a Sor18 or a Wiz35 or a Rog3/Wiz17, but the fact that she has the ability or power to employ any 9th-level spell she learns clearly groups the 9th-level spells together in an observable way.

[Totally Guy]

Surely you'd float in lava. I mean it's basically liquid rock which is really heavy, you're made of bone and burning flesh which is comparitively light. You wouldn't sink.

[Aroka]

Surely you'd float in lava. I mean it's basically liquid rock which is really heavy, you're made of bone and burning flesh which is comparitively light. You wouldn't sink.

You are probably correct. How has that never crossed my mind? I guess because all media always depicts lava as thick liquid (see Anakin after trying to attack at that -1 for lower ground).

Who wants to test it, though?

[Prime32]

I guess they kinda treat HP as DR then. I never really got into DBZ. WAY to much power escalation for me. Worse than reading a DC comic book.

More like Wounds and Vitality Points.

This treatment is pretty widespread in Eastern media. Sometimes the "barrier" is made of magic, demon-ness, or just plain determination. It's usually made clear that the characters' physical bodies aren't any tougher than normal, but attacking them is like trying to hit the south pole of one magnet with another. When a character gets struck in the vitals (from a crit) they'll likely die, but most attacks will wear down their "aura" instead.

[Gan The Grey]

Surely you'd float in lava. I mean it's basically liquid rock which is really heavy, you're made of bone and burning flesh which is comparitively light. You wouldn't sink.

True...but would you melt? And wouldn't your entire body just burst into flames from being that close? Granted, I might not be sinking, but I might be wishing I was. If I try to swim out, my arms will just melt. Screwed no matter what I do.

@Aroka Yes, I know that D&D isn't a perfect system. I know there are better systems out there for determining damage and injuries and many other things.

As for people pretending to not know the numbers, that's the very definition of good roleplaying. You are expecting them to forgot the fact that they are real people in a real world sitting around a real table with real dice and no real experience in what they are pretending to do. How is pretending not to know a number any different?

I think this is what The Rose Dragon means with exceptions upon exceptions. They grow indefensible, and they're just ad hoc explanations that don't really stand up.

Can you explain, for instance, why getting stomped by the tarrasque (with a regular attack, since it doesn't feel like wasting a full action to CDG you) while unconscious doesn't kill you? Are you rolling to avoid the hit while unconscious? And why can't you roll to mitigate the damage of falling a great distance? Why can't there be equally many reasons why the fall at terminal velocity didn't kill you? Instead of rolling, you hit something soft.

They aren't indefensible, and ad hoc is EXACTLY what storytelling and DMing and trying to make sense of a world defined by imperfect rules is all about.

If the Tarrasque doesn't want to make the effort to ensure that I'm dead, then he really didn't put his all behind the attack and it wasn't effective enough to do the job. Maybe he kicked me and I rolled. It wasn't a full-on hit. Or whatever. Who knows.

And you are right about the falling damage. I could do the exact same thing. It's just...different in my mind for some reason. I just don't like it. Unfortunately, that's about all I can give you.

More like Wounds and Vitality Points.

This treatment is pretty widespread in Eastern media. Sometimes the "barrier" is made of magic, demon-ness, or something. It's usually made clear that the characters' physical bodies aren't any tougher than normal, but attacking them is like trying to hit the south pole of one magnet with another. When a character gets struck in the vitals (from a crit) they'll likely die, but most attacks will wear down their "aura" instead.

I always did like the Wounds and Vitality points system. Can't remember why I don't use it now.

Curious: Where are you getting your information on this? Is this just from reading manga, or is this another system you are describing?

[The Rose Dragon]

Surely you'd float in lava. I mean it's basically liquid rock which is really heavy, you're made of bone and burning flesh which is comparitively light. You wouldn't sink.

You may float in lava, but it is treated as immersion either way. A splash deals far less damage, though.

[Ingus]

I usually solve most of the questions with in game experience and houserules.
In the first part you can put distinctions between weapons (i.e.: "As a sword savvy as I am, I can tell you that swinging properly a great piece of metal a Greatsword is would affect your enemy better than swinging a Shortsword"), non obviously lethal fall ("you can survive a jump from the roof... if you're lucky, but it would be painful") and so on.
If I feel a fall should be lethal, I treat it as lethal. Period.

This is more helpful in low to middle levels, since a 10th level character is legendary (as defined in Legend Lore) and a 20th should resist single handedly a higher emanation of divinity (Fiend or Angel), a fall from a mountaintop, an immersion in hot lava, a ray which disintegrates walls and ceilings and wuold easily put a bay a crowd of revolting people (lvl 1 to 5 commoners) with a spit.
So, leveling up you already break "usual people" limits and go tremendously further. If PCs had vanquished a minor divinity, they can see a jump from the roof as a minor inconvenience.

Moreover, I suggest you to treat adventures in a plot-like, adventure-like way, not statistics way. Like, for example, WoD suggests.

[potatocubed]

Actually swimming in full-on molten lava is impossible - the heat is intense enough to cause all the water in your body to evaporate instantly, turning you into a puff of pink fog. You can stand on or near the black crust that forms on it, though, since that insulates enough of the heat that you'll only get serious burns and die from toxic fume inhalation.

Anyway, that's a digression - I think that there's mileage in playing 3 entirely straight. I have this idea for a 4e game in which the PCs are magically-created supersoldiers, and they really can survive being stabbed over and over again, or mauled by a bear, or even immersed in lava.

[Aroka]

As for people pretending to not know the numbers, that's the very definition of good roleplaying. You are expecting them to forgot the fact that they are real people in a real world sitting around a real table with real dice and no real experience in what they are pretending to do. How is pretending not to know a number any different?

Because the numbers tell the players what their characters are capable of.

Their Spot ranks tell them how good they're at noticing things. They're probably going to have the person with the best Spot check do their spotting.

Their saves tell them how resistant they are to various dangers.

Their attack bonuses tell them how good they are at hitting things.

And their hit points tell them how much injury they can withstand with no harm at all.

Should they only be ignoring hit points, or should they also randomly determine who is the best at spotting things? Maybe require that they have to do statistical analysis, randomly choosing who does the spotting and recording their rate of success...


It's a game. If you're using the numbers, you use the numbers.

[Gan The Grey]

Because the numbers tell the players what their characters are capable of.

Their Spot ranks tell them how good they're at noticing things. They're probably going to have the person with the best Spot check do their spotting.

Their saves tell them how resistant they are to various dangers.

Their attack bonuses tell them how good they are at hitting things.

And their hit points tell them how much injury they can withstand with no harm at all.

Should they only be ignoring hit points, or should they also randomly determine who is the best at spotting things? Maybe require that they have to do statistical analysis, randomly choosing who does the spotting and recording their rate of success...


It's a game. If you're using the numbers, you use the numbers.

First of all, everyone should be doing the spotting. Then the characters should determine who is best by who is more successful. Think that Bob is better than Mike at Spotting things simply because his character sheet has him having a higher spot, when Mike has successful located hidden people on multiple occasions and Bob hasn't due to bad roles...well, that's bad roleplaying. I can't tell you how many times my players have acted like someone who shouldn't be good at something is actually awesome at it because of good roles, and vice versa.

Second, a character knows they are good at something based on their rate of success and years of experience, not how many points a player has sunk into a stat field. I know I'm a good blacksmither because I've made a bunch of good swords that have sold well. I'm good at jumping because I rarely fail to make it across a chasm/pit/whathaveyou. I'm good at hitting people because I've trained for years and I rarely miss.

EDIT Buncha misspells and misspeaks. Very tired. Forgive me.

[Prime32]

First of all, everyone should be doing the spotting. Then the characters should determine who is best by who is more successful. Think that Bob is better than Mike at Spotting things simply because his character sheet has him having a higher spot, when Mike has successful located hidden people on multiple occasions and Bob hasn't due to bad roles...well, that's bad roleplaying. I can't tell you how many times my players have acted like someone who shouldn't be good at something is actually awesome at it because of good roles, and vice versa.

Second, a character knows they are good at something based on their rate of success and years of experience, not how many points a player has sunk into a stat field. I know I'm a good blacksmither because I've made a bunch of good swords that have sold well. I'm good at jumping because I rarely fail to make it across a chasm/pit/whathaveyou. I'm good at hitting people because I've trained for years and I rarely miss.

There's also stuff like "I'm an elf, and everyone knows elves have good vision."

[Boci]

First of all, everyone should be doing the spotting. Then the characters should determine who is best by who is more successful. Think that Bob is better than Mike at Spotting things simply because his character sheet has him having a higher spot, when Mike has successful located hidden people on multiple occasions and Bob hasn't due to bad roles...well, that's bad roleplaying. I can't tell you how many times my players have acted like someone who shouldn't be good at something is actually awesome at it because of good roles, and vice versa.

Party: Hey debuffing wizard of ours, you know in the last fight 2 attacks missed you? Clearly you're the better tank, so go on, lead the way.

There's also stuff like "I'm an elf, and everyone knows elves have good vision."

There's also the "I am trained to notice things and you are not" but spotting is a bad example I think. In my group at least, everyone rolled spots checks, even me with my -1 modifier.