Quote from: Charlie Sheen;641244I thought I was winning, not warping back to the 80s.

This conflict dates to the 70s, basically the day D&D was first released. It hasn't changed since then.

Quote from: One Horse Town;641245Exactly - thus hit point abstraction.

The abstraction is a failure of Simulation of Process.

The game process says a hit has been made and damage has been done, the abstraction says no it hasn't.

Reality and Fiction say that the first sword or arrow strike against a target can kill, the abstraction says 'only if the target's HP is low enough'.

Common Sense says that jumping off a 40 foot curtain wall is highly dangerous, the abastractions says that 4d6 damage may well be not only be acceptible under conditions not all that rare- it may indeed be wise.

The abstraction says that targets hit and damaged by a sword are missed and no real immediate effect done, but a trip action can immediately make a target fall- something no sword blow can do.

And so on. The list is endless and one paying attention could file pages of silliness just by sitting in on one D&D game.


One has to be blind to accept a system like this, be it willfully or through ignorance.

Quote from: gleichman;641251The abstraction is a failure of Simulation of Process.

The game process says a hit has been made and damage has been done, the abstraction says no it hasn't.

Reality and Fiction say that the first sword or arrow strike against a target can kill, the abstraction says 'only if the target's HP is low enough'.

Common Sense says that jumping off a 40 foot curtain wall is highly dangerous, the abastractions says that 4d6 damage may well be not only be acceptible under conditions not all that rare- it may indeed be wise.

The abstraction says that targets hit and damaged by a sword are missed and no real immediate effect done, but a trip action can immediately make a target fall- something no sword blow can do.

And so on. The list is endless and one paying attention could file pages of silliness just by sitting in on one D&D game.


One has to be blind to accept a system like this, be it willfully or through ignorance.

I do agree it is a failure if the goal is to simulate real combat without sacrificing any simulation in the name of simplicity. But D&D isn't trying to do that. It is only a design problem for people who can't accept that kind of abstraction and not over think it. HP break down under scrutiny, but I wouldn't call them bad design. What you lose on the simulation end, you recover on the simplicity and flexibility end. It is a question of what kind of game you want. HP are just one possible mechanical solution, they are not good or bad on their own. If I were to make a gritty game for modern navy seal missions, I wouldnt go to HP. If I wanted something a bit lighter, simpler and that felt a bit larger than life like D&D, HP might fit.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;641253HP break down under scrutiny, but I wouldn't call them bad design.

It's bad design because they simulate *nothing* other than a beer and pretzels game itself, and RPGs are suppose to be about more than self-referencial nonsense.

Now I'd be good if people would admit that (such as you seem to in your post), we could note it as the silliness it is and leave people to it. But on this board we have people who actually claim it's realistic and that their games have some sort of claim to simulation. This is every bit as foolish as the Story Gamers claiming they are doing high Art.

Quote from: gleichman;641257It's bad design because they simulate *nothing* other than a beer and pretzels game itself, and RPGs are suppose to be about more than self-referencial nonsense.

No, it does simulate something, just not realistic combat where each roll means something specific. But more broadly it does simulate the feel of combat, along with the role of luck and experience. It is an abstraction, so if you are worried about details it will break down. but making it more astract frees people up a bit because it is simpler than say a wound system. it also helps keep the action going so characters can have more fights over the day---which is largely why you can have massive dungeon delves in D&D.  you may not like those things, but its a valid mechanic for certain aims and certain styles of rpg. Again it comes down to your goal. It may not be great for gritty realism, and it might not be good for what gleichman likes, but I am just not seeing anything that makes it automatically bad design as you are arguing. The fact that HP remain so popular suggests that there is something to the mechanic that works.

Quote from: gleichman;641246This conflict dates to the 70s, basically the day D&D was first released. It hasn't changed since then.

And it's still just as tiresome.

The facts remain - there are no viable alternatives. None. So while HP certainly has its flaws, it's the least flawed option. When discussing tabletop gaming you're not picking things that are good, you're picking things that are least bad.

If that isn't true, then you'd have no trouble presenting a viable alternative. Even one will do. I'll go ahead and preempt the obvious responses:

VP/WP systems: Having people randomly explode at all levels of play isn't conducive to taking the game seriously - instead players will treat their characters like disposable chess pieces, something that is undesirable even in a pure wargame.

HP that doesn't scale: Same deal.

Condition tracks: Same deal, but replace random death with random maiming or crippling or what have you. Also, even more attacks are a one shot.

Is it Earth like to have people fall over and die when shot in the head once? Sure. But last I checked, the whole point of roleplaying was to be someone you are not. You are a person on Earth (hopefully).

Notice how I didn't use the word realistic. That's because that word is defined by the laws of the world - in D&D casting Fireball is realistic, because it's an actual thing actual people can do there in a consistent and repeatable manner.

Because I suspect you will not have a single viable alternative to HP, I was trying to get you to redirect to a subject that might actually be productive.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;641261No, it does simulate something, just not realistic combat where each roll means something specific. But more broadly it does simulate the feel of combat, along with the role of luck and experience.

Oh please, you don't really believe that do you? Lie to yourself all you wish, I don't have time for it.

Quote from: gleichman;641269Oh please, you don't really believe that do you? Lie to yourself all you wish, I don't have time for it.

Yes. I wouldn't say D&D is a simulationist game if that is what you mean, but claiming HP simulates nothing is equally stupid.

Quote from: Charlie Sheen;641264Because I suspect you will not have a single viable alternative to HP, I was trying to get you to redirect to a subject that might actually be productive.

I've been playing viable alternatives to escalating HP for 32 years now. It's not difficult except for those who won't give it a serious try.

I could give any number of examples, but they'd mean nothing to you as it's clear you've either never seriously tried them or you screwed it up when you did. I'd have to sit you down at the table and show you directly for it to breach your skull- and frankly I don't want to.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;641270Yes. I wouldn't say D&D is a simulationist game if that is what you mean, but claiming HP simulates nothing is equally stupid.

D&D style HP simulates D&D. Nothing more.

Either way, I think we are getting hung up on semantics here. Your argument seems to be a game that isnt fully simulationist or process sim, isnt good design. To me that premise is pretty flawed. I just think your metric here for weighing design quality is broken.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;641275Either way, I think we are getting hung up on semantics here. Your argument seems to be a game that isnt fully simulationist or process sim, isnt good design. To me that premise is pretty flawed. I just think your metric here for weighing design quality is broken.

I say that a game that is suppose to provide a genre experiece but fails to, is a bad design.

D&D is a fine beer and pretzels experience, and it's a terrible fantasy RPG.

Quote from: gleichman;641273I've been playing viable alternatives to escalating HP for 32 years now. It's not difficult except for those who won't give it a serious try.

I could give any number of examples, but they'd mean nothing to you as it's clear you've either never seriously tried them or you screwed it up when you did. I'd have to sit you down at the table and show you directly for it to breach your skull- and frankly I don't want to.

I agree with you there are plenty of viable alternatives to HP. I wouldnt want HP in certain kinds of rpgs. They do work well for D&D though and games like it.

Every method does have a trade off. if you want a game that simulates real combat, you can get a heck of a lot closer than D&D. the two big drawbacks you may hit are complexity/game speed and the fact that realistic combat means characters who fight get hurt a lot longer and more easily. But those can be features or bugs depending on your posiiton (i tend to be fine with lethality but prefer a simpler system that plays faster and isnt as abstracted as HP). You seem more okay with adding in complexity to get a higher degree of realism. That is totally fine and if those are design goals, a complex system is good design. My point is it isnt the only measure. A simple game using HP can be good design if does what it sets out to do and pleases its audience.

Ah, Usenet. What a place it used to be.

Quote from: gleichman;641273I've been playing viable alternatives to escalating HP for 32 years now. It's not difficult except for those who won't give it a serious try.

I could give any number of examples, but they'd mean nothing to you as it's clear you've either never seriously tried them or you screwed it up when you did. I'd have to sit you down at the table and show you directly for it to breach your skull- and frankly I don't want to.

And yet you are unable to demonstrate and explain them, whereas if they existed and you were familiar with them in that degree of detail you'd have no problem illustrating them. Don't confuse me with people like Sacrosanct - I'm quite capable of understanding your points, but you need to make some first. Don't confuse yourself for him either - I won't let you get away with dodging the question by saying words about nothing.

The fact you will not display your logic shows me you don't have any. You are better than that. Right?