If the numbers are inflated enough, and the rate of return is fast enough and happens relatively fast, then players will not care that much about losing a few hit points.  Likely, they will act as one would expect.  Depending on the sensibility of the participants, this may or may not be desirable.  Scaling back or up will change the sensibility. 

Hit points aren't dumb.  They can be used in thoughtless, even stupid ways, not in accordance with the sensibilities of the group.  When this happens, some people involved may mistake them for "dumb". 

That's not to say that hit points are the best choice in every situation.  They aren't.  But likewise, calling them "dumb" is a display of a lack of imagination of the various sensibilities that others may bring to the table, because they certainly work well for many people.

Using hit points at some tables would be dumb.  That's not the fault of the hit points, though.

Quote from: VisionStorm on March 28, 2022, 01:10:20 AM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on March 28, 2022, 12:20:13 AM
Do you ever actually play D&D, with other people?  Because I can tell you, based on actual events in play where PC's burst in a door and find a horde of monsters, no one has ever said, "Hey, I can hold them here for a couple of rounds an lose half my hit points... no big deal."

Isn't that what "tanks" are for? I thought that's why we have the word "tanks" in RPGs. I guess I must have been hallucinating those times the toughest melee fighters in the group blocked a doorway or passage to bottleneck groups of enemies trying to get through while casters and ranged characters sniped them from behind.

Tanks?  Oh, wait, you mean the concept borrowed from MMOs and grafted onto later editions of the game, resulting in the least popular edition ever?  My AD&D games didn't have tanks (and the front-liners were there because of their AC, not their HP, anyway).  You're a 3rd edition fan, right?  We're playing completely different games...

Quote from: Eirikrautha on March 28, 2022, 10:51:42 AMMy AD&D games didn't have tanks. Before 3e showed up it was a happy place. It had flowery medows, and rainbow skies. And rivers made of chocolate, where the children laughed, and danced, and played with gumdrop smiles

Advanced and not Basic? Back in my day, our fighters had d8s for HP before whiners like you felt they needed d10s and that we needed PALADINS in the core rulebook.

So you take your munchkin fest and go back to your medow.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on March 28, 2022, 11:08:25 AM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on March 28, 2022, 10:51:42 AMMy AD&D games didn't have tanks. Before 3e showed up it was a happy place. It had flowery medows, and rainbow skies. And rivers made of chocolate, where the children laughed, and danced, and played with gumdrop smiles

Advanced and not Basic? Back in my day, our fighters had d8s for HP before whiners like you felt they needed d10s and that we needed PALADINS in the core rulebook.

So you take your munchkin fest and go back to your medow.

Ehhh, we played basic a little, but what kid can resist the lure of "advanced"?  I'd love to return to my medow... as soon as I figure out what that is.  And I don't think "munchkin" means what you think it does, either (I think you're looking for "grognard")...

Quote from: Eirikrautha on March 28, 2022, 10:51:42 AM

Quote from: VisionStorm on March 28, 2022, 01:10:20 AM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on March 28, 2022, 12:20:13 AM
Do you ever actually play D&D, with other people?  Because I can tell you, based on actual events in play where PC's burst in a door and find a horde of monsters, no one has ever said, "Hey, I can hold them here for a couple of rounds an lose half my hit points... no big deal."

Isn't that what "tanks" are for? I thought that's why we have the word "tanks" in RPGs. I guess I must have been hallucinating those times the toughest melee fighters in the group blocked a doorway or passage to bottleneck groups of enemies trying to get through while casters and ranged characters sniped them from behind.

Tanks?  Oh, wait, you mean the concept borrowed from MMOs and grafted onto later editions of the game, resulting in the least popular edition ever?  My AD&D games didn't have tanks (and the front-liners were there because of their AC, not their HP, anyway).  You're a 3rd edition fan, right?  We're playing completely different games...

Actually, the first time I ever heard the usage of the term "tank" in the context of gaming was back in the early 90s when I was introduced into TTRPGs and was playing D&D. The idea of a commercial internet wasn't even widespread back then, much less MMRPGs (though, they technically cropped up only a few years afterwards). High HP characters were already used as "tanks" before that. Party formations generally revolved around placing heavily armored, high HP warriors in the front precisely because they could soak up damage. And armor alone had little impact on character survivability compared to HP, so it wasn't all about high AC alone.

Try again.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on March 28, 2022, 11:25:39 AMEhhh, we played basic a little, but what kid can resist the lure of "advanced"?  I'd love to return to my medow... as soon as I figure out what that is.  And I don't think "munchkin" means what you think it does, either (I think you're looking for "grognard")...

No your a munchkin posing as a grognard.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on March 28, 2022, 11:57:16 AM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on March 28, 2022, 11:25:39 AMEhhh, we played basic a little, but what kid can resist the lure of "advanced"?  I'd love to return to my medow... as soon as I figure out what that is.  And I don't think "munchkin" means what you think it does, either (I think you're looking for "grognard")...

No your a munchkin posing as a grognard.

I look forward to anyone who can show me how to "munchkin" AD&D...

Quote from: Chris24601 on March 27, 2022, 07:48:53 PM
I'd say there's two problems with that particular scenario that essentially break the versimultude if you're going with abstract hit points.

The first is mechanical; the ratio of potential damage to hit points is too extreme. If the PC instead had 50 points and the villain's skill with a knife let him do 35 points and 52 on a crit (or a talent to let them do extra damage when their target is disadvantaged in that way) then the threat is much more credible.

Alternately, coup de grace rules existed in D&D for a reason. This is also where poison on the dagger can be useful.

Yep. But they don't FEEL good. The idea that HP's are this absolute-until-they're-gone assumption makes little sense without the clear exception-mechanics of Coup-De-grace. I've literally seen players try to argue in the middle of Con's "what is a coup-de-grace" vs. a Backstab (yes yes yes, I know the rules clearly state it) the point is people are warring with the intent of the mechanics vs. the assumptions of the players views on those abstractions. That distance is arbitrary and the balance of that arbitrariness doesn't jive with a *lot* of people.

I'm not saying you're wrong - and I obviously understand your point, I'm merely pointing out where the nuance causes friction (and why this discussion/debate/argument has been flying around for literal decades).

Quote from: Chris24601 on March 27, 2022, 07:48:53 PMThe second problem is in that particular GM's style; specifically putting the PC into a situation where there's a knife at their throat when they have so much plot armor left. If the PC was worn down and off his guard (i.e. down to a handful of hit points) and THEN the villain steps out of the shadows and puts a knife to their throat it's a whole different ballgame.

So too would be the villain and PC grappling (i.e. wearing down each other's hit points) until the PC was down to a few hit points and then the villain gets into a position where he can get the dagger to the PC's throat.

YUP. And unless players give implicit trust to their GM (who should have EARNED that trust) you're left with the vagueries of GM's trying to earn that trust at the cost of potential players who are reallllly bought-into their views of what these abstractions actually mean in their head.

What you end up with is, among other things, disgruntled players that either have to suck it up. Or GM's that for the sake of staving off arguments remove any colorful commentary for the purposes of roleplaying action - down as close to RAW-mechanics and die-throws and on-the-nose description for not offending peoples sensibilities. And yes there is wiggle-room between those, but I've seen it all at this point.

Again - it's about GM trust.

OR - you can try to lower that gap in what HP mean mechanically enough to satisfy the considerations of everyone involved. Be that with a house-rule, or an actual different system.

Quote from: tenbones on March 28, 2022, 05:57:11 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on March 27, 2022, 07:48:53 PM
I'd say there's two problems with that particular scenario that essentially break the versimultude if you're going with abstract hit points.

The first is mechanical; the ratio of potential damage to hit points is too extreme. If the PC instead had 50 points and the villain's skill with a knife let him do 35 points and 52 on a crit (or a talent to let them do extra damage when their target is disadvantaged in that way) then the threat is much more credible.

Alternately, coup de grace rules existed in D&D for a reason. This is also where poison on the dagger can be useful.

Yep. But they don't FEEL good. The idea that HP's are this absolute-until-they're-gone assumption makes little sense without the clear exception-mechanics of Coup-De-grace. I've literally seen players try to argue in the middle of Con's "what is a coup-de-grace" vs. a Backstab (yes yes yes, I know the rules clearly state it) the point is people are warring with the intent of the mechanics vs. the assumptions of the players views on those abstractions. That distance is arbitrary and the balance of that arbitrariness doesn't jive with a *lot* of people.

I'm not saying you're wrong - and I obviously understand your point, I'm merely pointing out where the nuance causes friction (and why this discussion/debate/argument has been flying around for literal decades).

This is only one possible explanation for the friction. There are a couple of others I could think of. Some players are just cheaters/sore losers and will argue disingenuously to get their way. The big thing, though, is I think a lot of people simply have differing opinions on what is reasonable. And as I mentioned earlier up thread, often times it can be the same gamer who wants two contradicting things.

And I can illustrate this conflict of opinion on what is reasonable easily enough. One of the things mentioned in the hit point discussion in the 1E DMG is the example of Rasputin as an extreme case of someone with a lot of physical hit points. He's described as someone who could withstand more than 4 men. Average men in 1E have a d6 hit points, so 4 men amounts to a total of 14 hit points. Rasputin is said to have more than 14 physical hit points.

So let's say you've got Rasputin in a half nelson with a knife to his throat. The problem is Rasputin has 15+ points of meat. It's got nothing to do with how little damage a knife does--it could be a friggin' two-handed sword and he'll still survive a throat slit. That's kind of Rasputin's shtick. And it's got nothing at all to do with how you interpret hit points. We're just talking about the physical hit points in this example. All of the arguments that have come up in this thread are rendered moot.

The question is, what do you make of it?

You might say that's absurd. No one can survive a throat slit.

Someone else might say, dude, this was a real guy who they had to like kill a bunch of times for him to really be dead.

Still another person might say that's obviously more legend than reality.

And yet another will point out that in a world of heroic fantasy, not only can a guy like Rasputin exist. Someone a hell of a lot tougher than Rasputin could exist. Gary laid out exactly that in the discussion on hit points. Specifically, he had it topping out at 21-23 physical hit points, which would be attainable by a fighter of at least 7th level with an 18 CON.

One of the things I love about 1E is it lets you do war game simulations, it lets you play heroes, it lets you play supers, it lets you play the world's movers and shakers, and it lets you play at the level of demigods. And you can choose whichever those styles of game you want and go with it. But it not only does that all in one system. It provides a mode of play where you can do that all in one campaign by having a level system that allows you to begin at the low extreme and then traverse all the different styles up to the highest end.

It gives you the tools to play the game you want to play. You really only run into hit point woes when you simultaneously both want to play at superhero levels but have issues with characters being superhuman. It's like, no shit you can't slit The Tick's throat with a chainsaw while he sleeps. Dude. He's nigh invulnerable. At a certain level of play, this is exactly what you signed up for.

Don't like it? Hey, I hear you. I tend to shy away from it myself. Which is why I keep a lid on stat inflation. I have a clear vision about what I want my game world to be like, and I go and do that.

But one last thing. I disagree that hit points don't jive with "a *lot* of people." There may seem to be a lot of you on certain platforms and in certain venues. But in the bigger picture, the number of people who complain about this stuff is extremely small. Hit points are by far the most popular mechanic among the vast majority of gamers. It's not necessarily the case that it's because it is better than all the alternatives. But you have to at least give it even odds of that being the case. At the very least, it's proven to be a mechanic that works. For regular people. Without needing an extraordinary GM, either in skill level or trust level.

Quote from: Lunamancer on March 29, 2022, 11:47:38 PM

Quote from: tenbones on March 28, 2022, 05:57:11 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on March 27, 2022, 07:48:53 PM
I'd say there's two problems with that particular scenario that essentially break the versimultude if you're going with abstract hit points.

The first is mechanical; the ratio of potential damage to hit points is too extreme. If the PC instead had 50 points and the villain's skill with a knife let him do 35 points and 52 on a crit (or a talent to let them do extra damage when their target is disadvantaged in that way) then the threat is much more credible.

Alternately, coup de grace rules existed in D&D for a reason. This is also where poison on the dagger can be useful.

Yep. But they don't FEEL good. The idea that HP's are this absolute-until-they're-gone assumption makes little sense without the clear exception-mechanics of Coup-De-grace. I've literally seen players try to argue in the middle of Con's "what is a coup-de-grace" vs. a Backstab (yes yes yes, I know the rules clearly state it) the point is people are warring with the intent of the mechanics vs. the assumptions of the players views on those abstractions. That distance is arbitrary and the balance of that arbitrariness doesn't jive with a *lot* of people.

I'm not saying you're wrong - and I obviously understand your point, I'm merely pointing out where the nuance causes friction (and why this discussion/debate/argument has been flying around for literal decades).

This is only one possible explanation for the friction. There are a couple of others I could think of. Some players are just cheaters/sore losers and will argue disingenuously to get their way. The big thing, though, is I think a lot of people simply have differing opinions on what is reasonable. And as I mentioned earlier up thread, often times it can be the same gamer who wants two contradicting things.

And I can illustrate this conflict of opinion on what is reasonable easily enough. One of the things mentioned in the hit point discussion in the 1E DMG is the example of Rasputin as an extreme case of someone with a lot of physical hit points. He's described as someone who could withstand more than 4 men. Average men in 1E have a d6 hit points, so 4 men amounts to a total of 14 hit points. Rasputin is said to have more than 14 physical hit points.

So let's say you've got Rasputin in a half nelson with a knife to his throat. The problem is Rasputin has 15+ points of meat. It's got nothing to do with how little damage a knife does--it could be a friggin' two-handed sword and he'll still survive a throat slit. That's kind of Rasputin's shtick. And it's got nothing at all to do with how you interpret hit points. We're just talking about the physical hit points in this example. All of the arguments that have come up in this thread are rendered moot.

The question is, what do you make of it?

You might say that's absurd. No one can survive a throat slit.

Someone else might say, dude, this was a real guy who they had to like kill a bunch of times for him to really be dead.

Still another person might say that's obviously more legend than reality.

And yet another will point out that in a world of heroic fantasy, not only can a guy like Rasputin exist. Someone a hell of a lot tougher than Rasputin could exist. Gary laid out exactly that in the discussion on hit points. Specifically, he had it topping out at 21-23 physical hit points, which would be attainable by a fighter of at least 7th level with an 18 CON.

One of the things I love about 1E is it lets you do war game simulations, it lets you play heroes, it lets you play supers, it lets you play the world's movers and shakers, and it lets you play at the level of demigods. And you can choose whichever those styles of game you want and go with it. But it not only does that all in one system. It provides a mode of play where you can do that all in one campaign by having a level system that allows you to begin at the low extreme and then traverse all the different styles up to the highest end.

It gives you the tools to play the game you want to play. You really only run into hit point woes when you simultaneously both want to play at superhero levels but have issues with characters being superhuman. It's like, no shit you can't slit The Tick's throat with a chainsaw while he sleeps. Dude. He's nigh invulnerable. At a certain level of play, this is exactly what you signed up for.

Don't like it? Hey, I hear you. I tend to shy away from it myself. Which is why I keep a lid on stat inflation. I have a clear vision about what I want my game world to be like, and I go and do that.

But one last thing. I disagree that hit points don't jive with "a *lot* of people." There may seem to be a lot of you on certain platforms and in certain venues. But in the bigger picture, the number of people who complain about this stuff is extremely small. Hit points are by far the most popular mechanic among the vast majority of gamers. It's not necessarily the case that it's because it is better than all the alternatives. But you have to at least give it even odds of that being the case. At the very least, it's proven to be a mechanic that works. For regular people. Without needing an extraordinary GM, either in skill level or trust level.

In my experience running a realistic system, the problem comes down to disabling injuries, which can derail a scenario should a hero sustain a broken leg or arm.

Hit point systems don't indicate *what actually happened* to an injured character, so it's hard to visualize, which contravenes the games' promise of looking explicitly like a movie. What does it mean to drop from 20 hit points down to 17?, for example. Some kind of hard-to-visualize huffing and puffing, which again isn't described. I'd say dealing with that fuzziness requires just as good a GM as running a realistic system does.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on March 28, 2022, 05:29:31 PM

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on March 28, 2022, 11:57:16 AM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on March 28, 2022, 11:25:39 AMEhhh, we played basic a little, but what kid can resist the lure of "advanced"?  I'd love to return to my medow... as soon as I figure out what that is.  And I don't think "munchkin" means what you think it does, either (I think you're looking for "grognard")...

No your a munchkin posing as a grognard.

I look forward to anyone who can show me how to "munchkin" AD&D...

  Buy Unearthed Arcana and use its options (classes, specialization, and die rolling for attributes).

Quote from: Lunamancer on March 29, 2022, 11:47:38 PMBut one last thing. I disagree that hit points don't jive with "a *lot* of people." There may seem to be a lot of you on certain platforms and in certain venues. But in the bigger picture, the number of people who complain about this stuff is extremely small. Hit points are by far the most popular mechanic among the vast majority of gamers. It's not necessarily the case that it's because it is better than all the alternatives. But you have to at least give it even odds of that being the case. At the very least, it's proven to be a mechanic that works. For regular people. Without needing an extraordinary GM, either in skill level or trust level.

Technically yes, at least in the way you see in forum discussions. But I've heard casual players with little experience with RPGs make off hand remarks a bunch of times about how silly HP are in certain circumstances. The difference they don't take it as seriously and don't care as much about the mechanics or the implications of them as more serious, system-oriented players. But even if they don't care, you can still see it in the expressions in their faces, and sometimes even their comments, when mechanics (not just HP, but other stuff as well) get in the way of what makes sense in any given situation. It's that feeling of disappointment when having to ignore verisimilitude, narrative flow and things that sound like they should be able to do if the rules did not state otherwise, in favor of what the rules say.

Quote from: oggsmash on March 30, 2022, 11:43:12 AM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on March 28, 2022, 05:29:31 PM

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on March 28, 2022, 11:57:16 AM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on March 28, 2022, 11:25:39 AMEhhh, we played basic a little, but what kid can resist the lure of "advanced"?  I'd love to return to my medow... as soon as I figure out what that is.  And I don't think "munchkin" means what you think it does, either (I think you're looking for "grognard")...

No your a munchkin posing as a grognard.

I look forward to anyone who can show me how to "munchkin" AD&D...

  Buy Unearthed Arcana and use its options (classes, specialization, and die rolling for attributes).

Depending on how you define "munchkin" you don't even need to get that far. If you go with something more like "murderhobos" and people focused on "wining" and getting the bigger bonuses (not just from abilities, but magic items and such), you can find those in edition of D&D. The group that introduced me into the game was like that, and they played B/X. Their whole game revolved around killing monsters and taking their stuff, and getting a bunch of homebrewed magical items (often inspired by video games) of ever ascending power. I was basically the guy who introduced the idea of actually trying to talk to enemies and RPing to their game circle.

Quote from: Ratman_tfThat's the problem. PCs shouldn't survive a dangerous situation because they're heroes. They should survive a dangerous situation because they made good decisions and played well.
A game can be lenient towards player characters, by being generous with hit points, or any other game design decision like that, but it doesn't have to be.

If PC's are exceptionally stupid then HP shall end in certain moment. If not... well they play heroic game specifically to feel like book/movie heroes not some dark fantasy rogue scrapping for survival. Which means that Character Skill of being a hero trumps Player Skill of puzzling your way out of turbo-lethal death trap.

Heroic game generally unlike your low fantasy OSR is not survival game, and not-playing well has generally different consequences within fiction than in low-fantasy.
I mean most unkillable mythical heroes did not end well if you think about it - they made bad decisions in plenty.

QuoteThe other factor to consider too is, this is a game so the fun factor is a consideration and "you're not only near death, you're also even less effective at avoiding it" is rarely all that fun to many people. Conversely, surviving a game with just a few scraps of hit points remaining because of lucky dice (or skill when its in a video game) because you haven't been reduced to the effectiveness of a potato is something everyone remembers and talks about fondly.

You must play with vastly different folk than mine. I must admit only time I really remember roll dice in my history of playing was when I betrayed all team in epic campaign finale and lost deciding Willpower roll by 1. 1% becauce it was d100% Otherwise rather narrative events are remembered rather than lucky dice rolls. I guess we're quite jaded these days.

QuoteI would much rather have 0 HP be that "Oh shit!" break away point, where you're too grievously injured to keep fighting (along with steep penalties for everything) and better try to run away. Then treat actual deal as a "Death Save" you have to make the moment you reach 0 or less HP, plus every time you take more damage from that point. That way you're still creating most of the desired effect without adding the complexity and bookkeeping of shifting cumulative penalties, or the death spiral factor the moment you get hit. Being at "0 HP" is also a more clear and obvious indicator that the game expects you to run away by that point, than to make it cumulative penalties and letting you figure it out once you're dead or spiraling down that path while surrounded by enemies.

But TBH point of epic fighting is well being bloodied. You were sort of annoyed the game is basically flowing between super-healthy and dead, now you opt for super-healthy and maybe-dead-but-anyway-ineffective. Give me greviously wounded dying warriors ripping throats of their enemies with last breath, dammit (TBH taking 0 as moment when you take penalties seems as arbitrary as adding penalties every dunno 20hp or smth.)

QuoteAnd the shortcomings of HP can be sidestepped by introducing trigger events (such as Critical Hits, as Pundit suggests in the video, or taking Massive Damage from a single hit) that require you to make a Death Save, even if you have enough HP to soak it up. That way you can add the lethality element without having to track shifting Wound Status (that don't even account for small cumulative injuries very well) with cumulative penalties and stuff, or "X Hits" mechanics that are really just watered down HP masquerading as something else.

That's how we did it with D&D 3.5
If you get more damage in one hit (from one source) than your Constitution score, you had to roll DC15 Fortitude (DC was rising IIRC +1 per 10 hp lost over Constitution - so if you were hit for 30 and you had Con 18 - you had to make DC16 save.
Failure was incapatitation, critical failure was dying.

Quote from: Wrath of God on March 30, 2022, 04:07:20 PM

QuoteI would much rather have 0 HP be that "Oh shit!" break away point, where you're too grievously injured to keep fighting (along with steep penalties for everything) and better try to run away. Then treat actual deal as a "Death Save" you have to make the moment you reach 0 or less HP, plus every time you take more damage from that point. That way you're still creating most of the desired effect without adding the complexity and bookkeeping of shifting cumulative penalties, or the death spiral factor the moment you get hit. Being at "0 HP" is also a more clear and obvious indicator that the game expects you to run away by that point, than to make it cumulative penalties and letting you figure it out once you're dead or spiraling down that path while surrounded by enemies.

But TBH point of epic fighting is well being bloodied. You were sort of annoyed the game is basically flowing between super-healthy and dead, now you opt for super-healthy and maybe-dead-but-anyway-ineffective. Give me greviously wounded dying warriors ripping throats of their enemies with last breath, dammit (TBH taking 0 as moment when you take penalties seems as arbitrary as adding penalties every dunno 20hp or smth.)

I'm not sure how what I proposed in that post prevents you from having the grievously injured warrior ripping someone's throat with their last breath. You could literally do that instead of running away, then probably get killed in the process. The difference is that what I proposed takes less work or bookkeeping and is less complicated than breaking your HP total down into multiple health brackets (which was the point of my post), and keeping track variable penalties depending how wounded you are, which additionally turns the whole thing into a death spiral, since each wound level diminishes your ability to avoid more wounds. In what I proposed that only happens once you're at 0 HP, which traditionally means death, but here I'm giving one last chance to run away (or die trying to reap someone's throat).

And while you could say that 0 is technically an arbitrary number, I disagree that it's AS arbitrary as taking cumulative penalties every 20 HP or whatever, cuz 1) those two things aren't even the same thing and one is more complicated than the other (which, again, was the point of post), 2) the second one creates death spirals (another point of my post), and 3) the number "0" represents the absence of something (in this case HP), which is a less arbitrary point to represent the "you're out of health—RUN!" danger zone than any number higher than 0.