Power Scaling and Realism in Dungeons and Dragons (all editions)

[Drolyt]

(I'm using 3.5 for examples here, but so far as I can tell this applies to all editions, and probably other games as well) One thing that has always confused me with regards to Dungeons and Dragons is that the difference between low levels and high levels is huge, yet people seem to want high level Dungeons and Dragons to behave "realistically". For example, I recall in the 3.5 Dungeon Masters Guide a suggestion to the effect of "if someone slits your throat in the middle of the night, it doesn't matter how many hit points you have, you die". Even if you are a 20th level barbarian. This applies real world common sense to the situation. Thing is, this isn't the real world, it's Dungeons and Dragons, and a 20th level barbarian is a demigod walking the earth. I've heard complaints to the effect that 20th level fighters shouldn't be able to survive falling 1000 feet or being completely immersed in lava. But why not? A 20th level wizard can fly, teleport, summon demons, create walls out of thin air, predict the future, see and hear things far away, cause meteors to rain out of the sky, move objects with his mind, control people's minds, read people's thoughts, travel to other dimensions, turn invisible, become intangible, control the weather pretty much anything you can imagine really. If this were a superhero comic or an anime, characters capable of such would be expected to be able to shrug off gigantic falls, to bathe in lava, and to have assassin's knives break on their necks. There was an old thread I found while googling "damaging objects in Dungeons and Dragons", where people thought it was ridiculous you could use an axe to chop your way out of a steel prison so long as you could overcome the hardness of the object and deal enough hit point damage. But is it really? Sure, Drolyt the normal earth human couldn't do that, but why not the 20th level Dwarf Fighter with the +5 Magical Waraxe of Doom?

I guess what I'm getting at here is that I think this is the wrong way to look at "realism" in games like Dungeons and Dragons. For me, verisimilitude is very important in my games, but I expect realism based on the standards of the game verse, not the real world. In my mind, Dungeons and Dragons gives those environmental hazards too much damage. Lava deals 20d6 fire damage every 6 seconds? Far too lethal for my taste. And really, I need epic levels to blow up a mountain? What is with that? Especially in 4th edition, where freaking deities are effectively 30-40th level characters. It makes Dungeons and Dragons gods weaker than than even bit characters from many superhero comics or anime. Ok, maybe you don't want D&D to be a superhero comic or anime, but it still feels weird when you are subjecting deities and the heroes that interact with them to real world standards of realism.

[Conners]

Forget level 20, you can survive bizarre stuff at level 5. Having your throat slit.... (1d4+STRMod)x3 damage (critical hit with a dagger). Assuming a strength of 12, that's an average of 9 damage... A level 2 Fighter could survive that. A maximum value is 15, which is easily manageable to a tough level 3 fighter or a level 3 barbarian? Level 4s won't have problems with that.
The only possibility of throat slitting being dangerous, is if you use the coup de grace rules and make them save vs. Death. Fort Save with DC10 + Damage Dealt... meaning in the example given, anything from 16 to 25. The chance of success is fairly low, unless the character has particularly high CON or Fort.... so it's then the problem that having your throat slit kills you instantly, which is not the real case.
Thus, we have a mixture of people who won't die given realistic cause, and people dying instantly when they should be alive for a good minute or so (it's terrible with negative HP...).

So, yeah--having your throat slit isn't a problem at epic levels, it's a problem at lower levels too. Players can run through fire if they want to, at mid levels.
Realistically, come to think of it, Falling Damage should cap shouldn't it? There's a certain point where you can't fall any faster.

[Drolyt]

Forget level 20, you can survive bizarre stuff at level 5. Having your throat slit.... (1d4+STRMod)x3 damage (critical hit with a dagger). Assuming a strength of 12, that's an average of 9 damage... A level 2 Fighter could survive that. A maximum value is 15, which is easily manageable to a tough level 3 fighter or a level 3 barbarian? Level 4s won't have problems with that.
The only possibility of throat slitting being dangerous, is if you use the coup de grace rules and make them save vs. Death. Fort Save with DC10 + Damage Dealt... meaning in the example given, anything from 16 to 25. The chance of success is fairly low, unless the character has particularly high CON or Fort.... so it's then the problem that having your throat slit kills you instantly, which is not the real case.
Thus, we have a mixture of people who won't die given realistic cause, and people dying instantly when they should be alive for a good minute or so (it's terrible with negative HP...).

So, yeah--having your throat slit isn't a problem at epic levels, it's a problem at lower levels too. Players can run through fire if they want to, at mid levels.
Realistically, come to think of it, Falling Damage should cap shouldn't it? There's a certain point where you can't fall any faster.

Good point about lower levels. D&D doesn't seem to do any reality realistically. As for a cap on falling damage, assuming physics works the same in the setting as it does in the real world there is a certain point where acceleration due to gravity is equal to the deceleration caused by air pressure and you maintain a constant velocity at that point. This is called terminal velocity. Mind you, there are recorded cases of people surviving falls at terminal velocity, and realistically any real world person should be stated at 5th level or lower. You actually seem to be in less danger at terminal velocity because your body has time to right itself and relax in preparation for impact; it seems the cause of death isn't the force exerted upon impact but things like breaking bones and snapping necks.

[Xiander]

D&D does not attempt to copy reality. Instead it attempts to create consistency, reality is up to the people playing the system.

[lesser_minion]

Thus, we have a mixture of people who won't die given realistic cause, and people dying instantly when they should be alive for a good minute or so (it's terrible with negative HP...).

The D&D game depends on post-hoc rationalisation in order to provide a semblance of realism -- in other words, you determine precisely what happened and why after you've determined the results within the rules.

Ignoring that assumption when constructing a scenario where the rules break down is a cheap way to get an absurdity to throw up on an internet forum, but it doesn't prove anything -- the rules didn't break down because they suck, they broke down because you're hurting them

What you're doing here is taking a concrete scenario -- a character having their throat cut -- and assuming that the rules will always handle that as 2d4+2 damage and a DC 10 + damage dealt fortitude save to not die. As far as the rules are concerned, however, you're not slitting anyone's throat -- you're trying to quickly murder an already-defeated enemy. You only slit their throat if they ended up on negative hit points but passed their saving throw.

This is also the fundamental reason why the rules tell you to ignore the hit point system for events like a dagger in the eye -- the rules do not handle concrete scenarios that were constructed in advance. They allow the players to specify what they want to achieve, not precisely what it is that they do.

[icefractal]

That's true to an extent, but I think you do have to assume that high-level characters have capabilities beyond what any real-life human does. I mean, even 10th level warrior-types can stand face to face with a 25' long shark, a house-sized animated statue, or a twelve-headed hydra - match it blow for blow - and survive the fight not only alive but ready for more. At that point, maybe a dagger to the throat should fall short of an insta-kill.

I've seen some comments to the effect of "Well, being surrounded by guys with crossbows should always be threatening, even if you did just kill a magma-breathing dragon." And I don't think I agree. Sure, sometimes stories go that way; but in those stories, people fight dragons by trickery or amazing luck, not face to face. Not really the case in D&D - you stand there, sometimes getting hit by the dragon, or having it breath fire on you, and not dying. And then you eventually slay it, by sheer might if necessary, weak spot not required.

So at that point, you have three options:
A) "You didn't actually stand there and fight the dragon, that was a metaphor or something - actually, you were hiding behind boulders and then a stalactite fell and speared it"
B) "Yeah, dragons aren't really that amazing - the guys with crossbows probably could have dealt with it just fine."
C) "Ok, maybe ordinary guys with ordinary crossbows aren't such a threat. Next time the duke will pay for some quality assassins instead of cheaping out."

[Lvl45DM!]

Its like lesser minion said. A good hit with a dagger can kill any normal human instantly. A 20th level fighter dies from a good dagger hit as well but until he dies the hit point damage inst the dagger plunging into his flesh, its flesh wounds bruises through armour a twisted ankle from dodging a good swing etc etc. If you get hit with a fireball and make your save you dodge out of the way so you take less damage, but the heat and smoke and damage from a buggered dodge maneuver hurts too. If you fail your save you're just tougher that the orcs who die, or your armour is better or your god is looking out for you. You invent the realism after the dice role.

[Frozen_Feet]

Exactly. In abstract systems like d20, you don't tell what happens and then roll dice - you roll dice and then tell what happens.

Anyways, as has been mentioned in the form of people surviving fall with terminal velocity, reality is often far more amazing or "unrealistic" than people give it credit for. Running through fire? Perfectly possible. Surviving a chunk of iron shooting through your skull? Possible. Sniping 500+ people with an outdated rifle with iron sights during winter and polar night in about hundred days? Possible. Climbing a sheer cliff, getting shot by machinegun rounds, proceeding to kill a bunker full of enemy soldiers and surviving? Eh, happened.

So while even at low levels, D&D allows some amazing feats, people take these to be much more outrageous than they actually are due to unrealistically low expectations of the real world. And then we get to the fact that D&D leaves all pretense of realism behind at level 8 at latest, and majority of classes cross that treshold by level one. (All spellcasters, f. ex.)

A level 10+ Fighter is not your fencing teacher. He's Roronoa Zoro from One Piece, capable of cutting through steel and surviving cannoballs to the chest. A level 20 Barbarian is not an angry barroom brawler, he's the Incredible Hulk. If you accept the fact that characters eventually cross from Joe and Jane Does to mythical figures on par with, or even greater than Heracles and Thor, then there is no problem. The conflict with expectations happens only if you think the game will stay the same through all of its levels, when it most empathetically and explicitly does not.

[Eldan]

Bah. They aren't Thor.

I mean, they can't drink an Ocean of Beer.

[Conners]

One problem with the argument, "It just never happens that they cut something vital until you run out of HP". The obvious one, is that this doesn't really happen (skill people aren't going to swing wildly at each other to no effect for an hour)... but an even worse point: What if the person has the dagger to your throat?

Honestly, if a person has a dagger to your throat, and they "Hit"...

Yeah, DnD works fine if you justify the rules with flavour. So does monopoly.


@Frozen Feet: I'm also of opinion that real life has amazing details. However... it's a different kind of amazing. People can run through fire, but it is a very different size and heat from the fires that would kill anyone. People can get shot by machine gun rounds and survive--other people die from a single handgun bullet.

Basically, there are billions of humans, doing billions of things, over their 70 years of life. So you're likely to get some amazing things. This doesn't mean the amazing things are common occurrence (in fact, that'd contradict its namesake). So, the problem with DnD, is that every player and high level NPC constantly live out the 1 in a billion chances, where it is highly uncommon for something normal to happen.

[Traab]

Bah. They aren't Thor.

I mean, they can't drink an Ocean of Beer.

Well they can come close. But the clean up is a BASTARD! Its why bartenders tend to cut them off at half a good sized lake.

As for the whole unreality thing, I can understand where the op is coming from. Even in comic book land, unless you are immune to damage like superman, getting your throat cut would kill batman, green lantern, wonder woman, hawkgirl, any of the xmen except for wolverine, etc. The problem comes with, "did the attack succeed?" Isnt that the whole point of the roll? To determine if that bandit who snuck into your camp while your group slept and tried to cut your throat actually did it? If it failed to kill you but still hurt, then maybe you shifted position at the last second, so he missed the arteries. Maybe you woke up in time to dodge, getting only a slight wound.

Also, maybe im wrong, but arent the bad guys you tend to encounter also scaled up to meet you in power? I mean, some level 20 adventure party isnt getting attacked by some scruffy ragged bandit with a worn dagger, right? So then the situation is more, "Did mystique manage to sneak up on cyclops and slit his throat?" Its a lot less of a stretch that it could actually happen in that scenario isnt it?

[Conners]

Well they can come close. But the clean up is a BASTARD! Its why bartenders tend to cut them off at half a good sized lake.

As for the whole unreality thing, I can understand where the op is coming from. Even in comic book land, unless you are immune to damage like superman, getting your throat cut would kill batman, green lantern, wonder woman, hawkgirl, any of the xmen except for wolverine, etc. The problem comes with, "did the attack succeed?" Isnt that the whole point of the roll? To determine if that bandit who snuck into your camp while your group slept and tried to cut your throat actually did it? If it failed to kill you but still hurt, then maybe you shifted position at the last second, so he missed the arteries. Maybe you woke up in time to dodge, getting only a slight wound.

Also, maybe im wrong, but arent the bad guys you tend to encounter also scaled up to meet you in power? I mean, some level 20 adventure party isnt getting attacked by some scruffy ragged bandit with a worn dagger, right? So then the situation is more, "Did mystique manage to sneak up on cyclops and slit his throat?" Its a lot less of a stretch that it could actually happen in that scenario isnt it?

Of course, then you get the question of, "Does that mean a dagger Mystique holds suddenly becomes sharper and more deadly...?" Realistically speaking, it shouldn't.
If a random thug gets a knife to Cyclops' throat, it's just as deadly. It isn't really a question of whether the scruffy thug can kill you, it's if he manages to. DnD makes things pretty where a level one commoner can never kill you--but then, King Richard was allegedly killed by a crossbow used by a young child.

[Eldan]

I'd imagine holding a knife to someone's throat is already a case of the opponent being helpless. At which point it becomes a Coup de Grace anyway.

[Conners]

Yeah, that's what I figured. Of course, it'd make more sense for it to be a Reflex Save in that case, if you're trying to avoid the knife slitting your throat. Regardless, it breaks down at the fact that you die instantly as if your head has been removed if you fail.

[Killer Angel]

The fact is that many peoples, know that dragons flying and wizards stopping the time, break the laws of physics, but they accept it cause it's explained by magic, a supernatural mechanic, while a "mundane" human fighter, has no such excuse, and he should live by a more mundane logic.

Now, I would like to cite myself from another thread:

Real World physics can help, but you cannot stay too much on it. Some game systems mantain a good degree of realism (GURPS), others not so much (Exalted), and some noothing at all (Toon).
The chassis of D&D, is built to do extraordinary things... the characters, if wholly developed, will became Hercules.
At epic levels, they can swim climbing a waterfall, and they can balance on clouds, with they mundane abilities. I don't like such extremes, but I cannot negate that the rules of D&D are made to let the characters (and the npcs) to do things beyond the human abilities. If you want, you can logically justify this thing, with magical enhancements of mundane abilities (you effectively jump so high thanks to your boots of springing. Of course you're so good in swimming: no real human got 24 strenght, thanks to the belt).
The key is to mantain the verisimilitude between the system.

We must remember that, at mid-low levels, in D&D you can do something totally crazy (from our "real world" pov) almost on a regular basis.
'specially in 3.x:

9th level Rogue. He has 12 ranks of Balance, started with 16 Dex and boosted it twice to 18 (+4). He gets a +2 synergy bonus from Tumble ranks, for a total modifier of 12+4+2=+18. Taking 10, he will, every time, be able to move at full speed across a one inch wide marble-covered beam. (18+10-5=23 for the check, 20+2(scree) =22 for the DC.)

9th level Barbarian. 12 ranks of Climb, now has 18 (+4) Strength, for a final modifier of 12+4=+16. Taking 10, he gets a 26. He can now climb most mountains while raining, moving 40 feet every 6 seconds. (Check is 26-5=21 for accelerated climbing, DC is 15+5=20 for climbing a rough natural rock surface that's slippery.)

9th level Swashbuckler. 12 ranks of Jump, 12 (+1) Strength, +2 synergy from Tumble. His modifier is 12+1+2=+15. Taking 10 gets him a 25. The female world record for the long jump is (7.52 meters)*(3.28 feet/meter) = 24.7 feet. This character beats that every time he wants to. The men's record is 8.95*3.28= 29.3 feet, which his character could swing pretty easily if he so desired. When the character rolls instead of taking 10, he can hit as much as 35 feet, blowing past the world record by two yards.

9th level Ranger goes tracking. 12 ranks in Survival, 14 (+2) Wisdom, +4 from Search and Know: Nature synergy, and +2 from some manner of tracking kit. Modifier is 12+2+4+2= +20, which means he takes 10 to get a 30. To match this, the DC is going to look like this: 4+5+1+20. That comes from tracking a single Toad (+4 DC for being Diminutive) that is covering his tracks (+5) after an hour of rainfall (+1) over bare rock (20).

[Frozen_Feet]

So, the problem with DnD, is that every player and high level NPC constantly live out the 1 in a billion chances, where it is highly uncommon for something normal to happen.

How is that a problem? D&D calls out both player characters and high level characters as being something expectional, often mirrored by flat-out giving them supernatural powers or patronage. They are the ones expected to live out those 1 in a billion chances.

You want to play a mundane game? Then everyone are Experts, Aristocrats and Warriors ranging from levels 1 to 4. Within those parameters, the reality of the game matches the "normal" reality of our world.

But once you allow players to advance past level 5 or let them play Wizards and the like, you aren't playing a simulation of the real world anymore. You're playing a heroic saga or Shounen action adventure comedy, and the reality within the game will start to mirror that. At which point, you shouldn't use reality to set your expectations (at least as much), but rely on narrative conventions of the proper genre. And in fiction land, the protagonist do live out the 1 in a billion chances all the time, and that's what makes those stories fun.

[Traab]

Of course, then you get the question of, "Does that mean a dagger Mystique holds suddenly becomes sharper and more deadly...?" Realistically speaking, it shouldn't.
If a random thug gets a knife to Cyclops' throat, it's just as deadly. It isn't really a question of whether the scruffy thug can kill you, it's if he manages to. DnD makes things pretty where a level one commoner can never kill you--but then, King Richard was allegedly killed by a crossbow used by a young child.

Of course it is. That random bandit is using an old, chipped, rusty dagger made of pot metal, while mystique has her adamantium alloy, scalpel sharp blade! Its like the difference between a greatsword and a +5 greatsword with a fire added damage effect! Also, id imagine that mystique, being such a high end stealthy mistress of disguise and infiltration, would also have a much better chance of GETTING to his throat while he sleeps.

[Frozen_Feet]

Not to mention that Mystique, having been in this villain business for quite a while, most likely has much better picture of human anatomy and how to deliver an effective, lethal strike than some random shmuck. Not to mention differences in physical strenght, though I forget if Mystique is supposed to have any special edge on that department.

Point is, it does make a difference who is holding the knife.

[Conners]

@Killer Angel: That is exactly the problem. The Fighter is meant to be mundane. If you said that as players levelled up their flesh got super-tough, so that they could deflect arrows--I could accept that. I could accept players being semi invulnerable, eventually dying when their regeneration is used up. However, I'm instead presented with "ordinary" people--doing things that make no sense.


@Frozen_Feet: The question is, which is DnD trying to model...? In some ways, it seems to be trying to model reality, in a more cinematic light. In other ways, it does enter into the realm of shonen action. But then, it also doesn't do the epicness as well as some games do.
Question is whether it is a hybrid, in-between, or an odd mixture of realism and unrealism. Would say the latter.


@Traab: I guess that's how it tends to be in DnD. Speaking with reality in mind, you don't need the sharpest thing ever to cut someone's throat. The piece of broken pottery or a piece of glass is fully sufficient (glass tends to be even sharper than metal knives--because the metal knives are made to last, glass is just sharp by accident). So, it doesn't matter if you use the +5 Greatsword which is on fire, for the larger part of it--a shiv will do the job fine.
Either way, if it's a matter of getting to the person's thraot, that's rather different... but in a situation where they're already there--there isn't much room for Fort Saves.


@Frozen_Feet: The Riddle of Steel. Which is stronger? The Steel, or the hand which holds it...? Answer: The Wielder. Someone with a nuclear bomb who is unwilling to use it, is infinitely weaker than a murderer with an icepick. So yes, if Mystique is an experienced killer and the thug is just an angry teenager who would sooner cut himself than you swinging his knife--you have an obvious advantage for one of them and not the other of them, either or.

Physical strength has very little to do with cutting someone's throat, since the amount of strength used will be quite little. The point I was making, however, is it doesn't make a difference when it comes to the attack, if the attack hits. Unless "hit" means they slip on a banana peel and nick one of your whiskers as they fall over backwards.
Even a complete idiot can kill someone of great skill, providing the proper level of surprise--because metal things kill people. That's why skilled people take great care never to be surprised, and Sun Tzu takes pride in arranging good situations, rather than fighting well in bad ones--because no matter how good you are, risks are just that... risks to your life.

[Incanur]

My problem comes with the details of expressing that demigod status. Impenetrable skin, healing factor, senses and skills that prevent being ambushed? Great. A giant pile of hit points? Not so much fun. Hp don't emulate mythical fantasy with any success.

[Frozen_Feet]

Question is whether it is a hybrid, in-between, or an odd mixture of realism and unrealism. Would say the latter.

And the answer is... all of them.

D&D is not a complete game. It's a game system. It relies on the GM and the players to actually give it a concrete shape, to create an actual scenario to play out.

And D&D gives a huge assortment of tools, which can be used to model huge assortment of situations. It is, however, inherent in the system that the game changes. It gradually transitions from low-key sword & sorcery to epic tales about raiding hell and what not. How smooth this transition is depends on whether the GM and players acknowledge this and accept it.

Most grievances about realisim D&D, as I said earlier, come from people failing to do he first or unwilling to do the second.

[Tengu_temp]

There is no realism in DND, and almost no verisimilitude without heavy DM re-interpretation. 4e is an almost purely gamist system that sacrifices making sense for providing balance and tactical challenges. 3.5 tries to keep verisimilitude up, but it fails due to many unintended side effects of the ways many rules, classes and feats work. Older edition don't even have mechanical consistency, much less consistency between crunch and fluff.

I don't think if any edition of DND is very good at simulating heroic fantasy, or high fantasy, or sword and sorcery. 4e, as I mentioned before, focuses on being a game at the cost of everything else, and is best for tongue in the cheek video game-inspired settings such as Disgaea. 3.5, with its extreme power growth over the levels and characters that can take a crapload of punishment, is best for shonen fighting anime like Bleach or Dragonball. AD&D is probably the most fantasy-like in this regard, as long as you keep in mind that non-casters will have very limited options and, ultimately, the caster will still become much more powerful than the rest of the party together.

[Conners]

Incanur has it about right. HP basically works like some kind of limited regeneration magic, where you die as soon as you have "died"/been-wounded enough times.


Tengu also gives the long and short of it. Generally, DnD is fun, but I would not use it for a realistically intended game. Once, I tried--but I didn't understand well enough back then. Editing the system extensively could result in a fairly good simplified simulation of combat--but it would be so extensive that it would be easier to make a new system from scratch.

[Killer Angel]

@Killer Angel: That is exactly the problem. The Fighter is meant to be mundane. If you said that as players levelled up their flesh got super-tough, so that they could deflect arrows--I could accept that. I could accept players being semi invulnerable, eventually dying when their regeneration is used up. However, I'm instead presented with "ordinary" people--doing things that make no sense.


@Frozen_Feet: The question is, which is DnD trying to model...? In some ways, it seems to be trying to model reality, in a more cinematic light. In other ways, it does enter into the realm of shonen action. But then, it also doesn't do the epicness as well as some games do.
Question is whether it is a hybrid, in-between, or an odd mixture of realism and unrealism. Would say the latter.

As already said, you can simulate various kind of game with D&D, accordingly to the DM and players' style, from high cinematic and unrealistic campaigns(ToB?), to realistic and more mundane settings (E6?).
Only, you must be coherent: imo you shouldn't have druidzilla and incantatrix, while forcing the non-magic user to follow too much the laws of physic: it should have the chance to do extraordinary mundane actions (swimming a couple of round in lava and survive). Especially if the rules let you do it.
The higher the level, the more extraordinary things you can do.
That said, DnD is far from perfect, 's not even close.

[Drolyt]

I think the following two concerns sum up my problem with D&D and verisimilitude/realism:

That is exactly the problem. The Fighter is meant to be mundane. If you said that as players levelled up their flesh got super-tough, so that they could deflect arrows--I could accept that. I could accept players being semi invulnerable, eventually dying when their regeneration is used up. However, I'm instead presented with "ordinary" people--doing things that make no sense.

See, ever since I first started playing the game I assumed this wasn't the case. I assumed that high level fighters and barbarians were supposed to be like Goku or Rock Lee, where they don't really have superpowers (ignoring Ki for the moment) but build up amazing strength and durability that makes no sense in our world but works in a world full of magic and dragons. But what I've come to realize is that the rules aren't really written that way. High level characters are still treated like normals when it comes to how they interact with the environment, which is just odd. I'm fine with games like GURPS where such realism is the baseline, but in D&D these characters are supposed to compete with 20th level wizards, druids, clerics, and sorcerers. Heck, even GURPS can scale up to those levels, not cleanly, but it can. Which I suppose leads me to my next point...

My problem comes with the details of expressing that demigod status. Impenetrable skin, healing factor, senses and skills that prevent being ambushed? Great. A giant pile of hit points? Not so much fun. Hp don't emulate mythical fantasy with any success.

What exactly does HP represent? I had always assumed it represented how tough you, how much damage you could take before you die. But that doesn't seem to be the case, rather it is an attempt to roll general survival capability into a single number. The same problem occurs with AC, somehow the one number factors in ability to dodge, to block, to parry, protection from armor, protection from magic etc. This despite the fact that we have damage reduction and energy resistance as separate stats (but not generally for PCs).

If I were to do it, hit points would represent "how much actual damage I can take before dying", and would be a lot less than in current D&D. AC would be replaced with reflex saves, not sure how I'd handle shields/blocking and parrying. Armor would provide damage reduction, as would tough skin. Regeneration/fast healing would probably be more common among high level characters. Magical defenses would have to be factored in in a way that doesn't just add to existing numbers in an unintuitive way. This would all be a little more work, but it would greatly improve verisimilitude and allow greater differentiation between characters. A barbarian would have a ton of hit points but less of other defenses, a wizard would rely on magic to protect him, a rogue might be really good at dodging, a druid might have regenerative powers (either through magic or because of his shapeshifting), and a fighter has the best overall defense (good hit points, good damage reduction, good reflexes, a shield, maybe a little fast healing at high levels).

Edit: Dungeons and Dragons was the first tabletop RPG I played and still my favorite. I love the game, don't get me wrong. Still, it has some flaws, and that's all I'm getting at here. I think with some tweaking D&D could do better in the verisimilitude and consistency departments.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Edit: Dungeons and Dragons was the first tabletop RPG I played and still my favorite. I love the game, don't get me wrong. Still, it has some flaws, and that's all I'm getting at here. I think with some tweaking D&D could do better in the verisimilitude and consistency departments.

Try Hackmaster then. You'll also see why D&D has never tried to be "realistic"

IMHO, D&D does a fine job of modeling a Heroic Fantasy world. While I believe some editions have done a better job of being a good game than others, this much is true across all editions.

If you want "realism" or the dreaded "verisimilitude" then you should turn to a game whose purpose is to model reality as opposed to a fictional world. To date, I know of no system which does this well, although I know of several that make that claim. FATAL, for one

[Talakeal]

My take on it is that D&D is modeled after high fantasy and sword and sorcery stories. The protagonists of such stories are generally real people, albeit exceptionally gifted ones with access to magical objects or spells that are not available in the real world. Even a level 20 fighter is just a guy who is in really really good shape and really really practiced at combat.

Other games are modeled after Anime, Fairy Tales, or Comic Books, worlds where the same limits of reality may not apply, and the heroes are generally more than mere humans. They are aliens from the planet krypton, demi gods, imbued with immortal power, mutants, have fortified their bodies with mystical energy, etc.

Although D&D has your power continue to increase beyond mid levels it never gives any in character explanation WHY it does so. You get a fundamental disconnect between the flavor text and the rules. Something as simple as "all living creatures can, with experience, learn to tap into the ambient magical energy of the fantasy world, and in doing so gain supernatural abilities", which I believe 4th ed has, would be enough. But D&D doesn't have it because the stories it was modeled after do not.

Personally I like it that way, and I don't play games beyond ten level. For me the game is about playing a person in a fantastic world, and the less like a real person the character is the less I can relate to it. I am also a firm believer in the Incredibles idea that when everyone is super then no one is.

[Drolyt]

Although D&D has your power continue to increase beyond mid levels it never gives any in character explanation WHY it does so. You get a fundamental disconnect between the flavor text and the rules. Something as simple as "all living creatures can, with experience, learn to tap into the ambient magical energy of the fantasy world, and in doing so gain supernatural abilities", which I believe 4th ed has, would be enough. But D&D doesn't have it because the stories it was modeled after do not.

While, it is this disconnect that I'm talking about. High level D&D characters' abilities in some areas (spells, skills, etc.) don't mesh with their abilities in others (surviving environmental hazards, destroying objects). It's not that a game where you have both awesome powers and frailty is a bad thing, it is that D&D fails at that just as much as it fails at being animesque fantasy, mostly because of the bizarre way hit points work. If you are looking for that you could try GURPS or maybe Hero with extremely limited defenses, but D&D, despite being a fun game, doesn't seem (to me) to represent either gritty or superheroic/animesque well. As for "when everyone is super no one is", I'm not familiar with the source material. If what you mean is that if everyone has superpowers then it is no longer super because it is normal then I agree, that's why I always disliked the suggestions in the 3.5 DMG (not sure if 4e changed it) that even high level characters are, if not common, pretty easy to find if you head to large enough cities. D&D seems to take the assumption that the PCs aren't unique, which is an assumption I've almost always changed when I DM. At any rate, as far as superheroes go I think the "hero" part is more important than the "super". The normal who risks his life for others is a better superhero than the godlike being that does nothing for others.

[Oracle_Hunter]

While, it is this disconnect that I'm talking about. High level D&D characters' abilities in some areas (spells, skills, etc.) don't mesh with their abilities in others (surviving environmental hazards, destroying objects).

For what it's worth, 4e does a much better job at scaling these sorts of things.

Not destroying objects, unfortunately, but I came up with homebrew fix awhile ago to address it. Works fine for me.

[Incanur]

What exactly does HP represent? I had always assumed it represented how tough you, how much damage you could take before you die. But that doesn't seem to be the case, rather it is an attempt to roll general survival capability into a single number.

Yes and no. In 3.5, losing hit points means getting injured. If you have 1000hp and take 1 damage from a poisoned weapon, that means you've been cut. If you take 100 damage, presumably you rolled with the punch. If everyone in the game used blunt weapons, that might be okay. Unfortunately, rolling with punches doesn't translate well to edged weapons. Just look superhero comics. Character like Thor and Wonder Woman can survive nuclear explosions and planet-shattering haymakers but still have to worry about a sharp blade. D&D's death-of-a-thousand-stings approach would look so silly on panel that artists don't even go there. Comics aren't anymore realistic or reasonable, but reject it simply for aesthetic considerations.

IMHO, D&D does a fine job of modeling a Heroic Fantasy world.

In my experience with 3.5 and crew of veteran gamers, D&D combat looks nothing whatsoever like heroic fantasy combat past about level seven. It becomes it's own unique animal. Action economy and the associated funky time manipulation reign supreme.