Sommerjon doesn't seem to understand the difference between words like "abstraction" and "dissociation". It's unfortunate, because it makes everything he says on the topic practically worthless.

Prove me wrong.

But you wont you would rather make snide comments.

Quote from: Benoist;542953Sommerjon doesn't seem to understand the difference between words like "abstraction" and "dissociation".

Neither do you.

It's fashionable on this site for posters to use "abstraction" to defend concepts they like and "dissociation" for those they do not.

It's weak sauce.

Quote from: Benoist;542953Sommerjon doesn't seem to understand the difference between words like "abstraction" and "dissociation". It's unfortunate, because it makes everything he says on the topic practically worthless.

Yeah, seriously, it's not hard. A dissociated mechanic is an abstracted mechanic that you don't like. Pretty simple really.

• Dissociated mechanic: A mechanic that I can't explain from an in-character perspective.

• Abstract mechanic: A mechanic that I can explain from an in-character perspective.

• Metagame mechanic: A mechanic that is not used from an in-character perspective.

Since virtually everything in RPGs is an abstraction based on real life, all mechanics are inherently abstract (some more than others).  However, not all mechanics are dissociated or metagame.

My thief using the Stealth skill to hide is an abstract mechanic.  My thief using the Shadow Blade power to stab his enemy and turn invisible for the round is a dissociated (not metagame) mechanic.  My thief using his Many Treasures ability to declare he has stolen the queen's brooch is a metagame (not dissociated) mechanic.

Quote from: Sommerjon;542947

QuoteThe hit point system is more than just the definitional verbiage you quote.

No it isn't.

Ah. You're trolling. Got it.

Quote from: Benoist;542953Sommerjon doesn't seem to understand the difference between words like "abstraction" and "dissociation". It's unfortunate, because it makes everything he says on the topic practically worthless.

His confusion of those terms pales in comparison to the scope of his general illiteracy. And his general illiteracy pales in comparison to the claim that none of the actual mechanics of how hit points work are part of the hit point system.

Quote from: B.T.;542986• Dissociated mechanic: A mechanic that I can't explain from an in-character perspective.

• Abstract mechanic: A mechanic that I can explain from an in-character perspective.

• Metagame mechanic: A mechanic that is not used from an in-character perspective.

B.T. nails this one.

Quote from: Fifth Element;542975Yeah, seriously, it's not hard. A dissociated mechanic is an abstracted mechanic that you don't like. Pretty simple really.

While I'm sure it sometimes gets used that way, that's not what I meant by it.  

Hit points are an abstraction of the idea that experience allows one to last longer in combat when they are more experienced.  Similarly, armor class is an abstraction of the idea that armor reduces how much damage an armored fighter takes in combat.  In the areas where they are designed to work best, the results of the abstraction would make sense in character, even if the particular mechanical representation would not.  

I do, however, consider both of those non-representational abstractions in that they way they produce the abstraction doesn't mirror how the effect really works (e.g., more skilled combatants take less damage because they get hit less and less severely rather than being able to take more damage, armor reduces the damage taken rather than making it less likely than the combatant will be hit).    As such, both of those abstractions easily become disassociated outside of the situation in which they were designed to work (melee combat) such that healing spells, falling damage, and so on don't naturally work as one would expect.  For that reason, I'm not a fan of non-representational abstractions and think it's no mistake that hit points, armor class, and levels, which are all non-representational abstractions likely to become disassociated in at least some cases, have been common points of complaint since the early days of D&D and most other game systems not consciously trying to imitate D&D generally take a different approach and do not increase hit points with experience, have armor that reduces damage taken, and base character abilities on more narrow skill levels rather than broad classes.

But the essence of what makes disassociated mechanics "disassociated" is that they don't make sense to the character.  If your character can't explain why they heal entirely after a full night's rest, then the mechanic is disassociated.  And a setting where everyone naturally does heal entirely overnight, no matter how badly wounded, is normal and expected would have a very different attitude toward injuries than our world does and it would change behavior in some pretty spectacular ways.

Or, to make this short and simple, very rapid healing without a legitimate in-game explanation for it is going to cause problems with players who expect their characters to be able to understand and explain what's happening in the game.

Quote from: B.T.;542986• Dissociated mechanic: A mechanic that I can't explain from an in-character perspective.

• Abstract mechanic: A mechanic that I can explain from an in-character perspective.

• Metagame mechanic: A mechanic that is not used from an in-character perspective.

An abstraction can be representational or non-representational.  By that, I mean that the abstraction can be designed to work roughly the way the thing works in the real world or it can be designed to reproduce the results in the real world but in a way that does no mirror the way things work in the real world.  Thus an abstraction can become a disassociated mechanic if it produces results that don't make sense in character.

Giving an experienced character more hit points is a way of abstracting an experienced character's ability to survive longer in combat, but it does so by letting the character take more damage, which is not why that happens in the real world, rather than making it more likely that they'll avoid taking damage in combat, which is closer to what really happens.  As a result, the abstraction breaks down once you combine those increased hit points with things that have nothing to do with experience, like healing or falling damage.

Making a character less likely to get hit (and thus take damage) with more armor is a way of abstracting the fact that an armored character takes less damage during combat than an unarmored character, but it does so by making a character in essence harder to hit, which is not what happens in the real world, rather than by absorbing damage, which is roughly what happens in the real world.  As a result, the abstraction breaks down once you combine  armor reducing the chance to hit with damage that has no to-hit roll (falling damage) or things like surprise attacks and touch attacks.  

To make those abstractions more representational, I would make hit points static, call armor class "defense class" and increase that based on level, and then have armor subtract damage.  But that's not what people expect in D&D.  The nice things about representational abstractions is that they tend to work a lot better when applied in other contexts, which is why my suggestions wouldn't suffer from the same problems that D&D's abstractions suffer from when it comes to healing, falling damage, touch attacks, surprise attacks, and so on.

Quote from: JA

Quote from: Originally Posted by LordVreeg}  
I could say the same of the Monk and paladin and ranger, or for god's sake, of weapons doing different damages, or adding good and evil to the alignment system. [/QUOTEI think there is a difference, though.

Monks, paladins, rangers, rating weapons for different damage dice, adding a new axis to the alignment system... These are all new things which were added onto the same underlying chassis.

And if you look at D&D from 1974 to 2008, that remains basically true: You occasionally see an edition drop or revise something that a previous edition had added to the game, but all of the different versions of the game were basically different sets of add-ons to the original 1974 rules (barring a few minor tweaks to the numbers on a table, the exact categorization of saving throws, and that sort of thing).

Some of the stuff that 1989 bitches about (like advantages/disadvantages in D&DNext) are actually just more additions. Like 'em or not, they're not fundamentally altering the core chassis of the game. But CRKrueger's Stamina/Wounds mechanic or D&DNext's revision of Hit Dice are actually altering that chassis in fundamental ways.

I disagree, respectfully.  But I think I disagree mechanically while agreeing with you philosophically, if that makes sense.
  CRKrueger's revision is still a revision, it does not remove HP so much as keeps it and adds more on; similar to what adding classes do and every other example I made, almost identical to the changes in weapon damage with differing damage, smal/medium vs large damage clasees, and hit vs armor type.  


And I do understand the philosophy of Hit Points and did so back in the 80's.  I undestand that CRKrueger's revision does make a large philosophical change in the level of abstraction and what HP (one of the basic ideas of the game) represents.  And changing that representation does make a major change to how the game works.

Quote from: Originally Posted by B.T.• Dissociated mechanic: A mechanic that I can't explain from an in-character perspective.

• Abstract mechanic: A mechanic that I can explain from an in-character perspective.

• Metagame mechanic: A mechanic that is not used from an in-character perspective.

Score.

Quote from: Spinachcat;542968Neither do you.

It's fashionable on this site for posters to use "abstraction" to defend concepts they like and "dissociation" for those they do not.

It's weak sauce.

Nice try, but I'm forced to conclude you don't understand the difference either.

An abstraction is the summary of a concept in the form of an idea. In an RPG context, all rules are abstractions, since they translate a concept, like say an element of the physics of the game world, like a fall, or burning, or character power into a set of rules, mathematical formulas and dice rolls, like say a fireball does damage, and the power of the blast is relative to the spellcaster's power, i.e. Xd6 of damage where X is the level of said spellcaster.

Now a dissociation is different, in that it indicates that one thing is divorced, separated, and unlinkable to the other. In RPG terms, it is said of a rule that cannot be explained from the perspective of the character (in character, such as fire burns = does damage, see fireball example above, which is associated). Marking mechanics, fighter daily powers are examples of dissociated mechanics.

Quote from: Benoist;543028Nice try, but I'm forced to conclude you don't understand the difference either.

An abstraction is the summary of a concept in the form of an idea. In an RPG context, all rules are abstractions, since they translate a concept, like say an element of the physics of the game world, like a fall, or burning, or character power into a set of rules, mathematical formulas and dice rolls, like say a fireball does damage, and the power of the blast is relative to the spellcaster's power, i.e. Xd6 of damage where X is the level of said spellcaster.

Now a dissociation is different, in that it indicates that one thing is divorced, separated, and unlinkable to the other. In RPG terms, it is said of a rule that cannot be explained from the perspective of the character (in character, such as fire burns = does damage, see fireball example above, which is associated). Marking mechanics, fighter daily powers are examples of dissociated mechanics.

Care to explain how 1e hit point recovery is 'abstracted' and 4e/5e is 'disassociated' when
DMG pg82
"Recovery of Hit Points:
When a character loses hit points in combat or to some other attack form (other than being drained of life energy levels), there are a number of different means by which such points can be restored. Clerics and paladins are able to restore such losses by means of spells or innate abilities.
Magical devices such as potions operate much the same way, and a ring of regeneration will cause automatic healing and revitalization in general of its wearer. Commonly it is necessary to resort to the passage of time, however, to restore many characters to full hit point strength.

For game purposes it is absolutely necessary that the character rest in order to recuperate, i.e. any combat, spell using, or similar activity does not constitute rest, so no hit points can be regained. For each day of rest a character will regain 1 hit point, up to and including 7 days. However a
character with a penalty for poor constitution must deduct weekly the penalty score from his or her days of healing, i.e., a -2 for a person means that 5 hit points healing per week is maximum, and the first two days of rest will restore no hit points. After the first week of continuous rest, characters with a bonus for high constitution add the bonus score to the number of hit points they recover due to resting, i.e., the second week of rest will restore 11 (7+4) hit points to a fighter character with an 18 constitution.  Regardless of the number of hit points a character has, 4 weeks of continuous rest will restore any character to full strength."

How does one jump from 27 hitpoints regained to full in one measly day in this so-called 'abstracted' method

Quote from: Justin Alexander;542995Ah. You're trolling. Got it.

Good ol'Justin always fleeing to this refuge when someone starts poking holes in his 'facts'

Quote from: Justin Alexander;542995His confusion of those terms pales in comparison to the scope of his general illiteracy. And his general illiteracy pales in comparison to the claim that none of the actual mechanics of how hit points work are part of the hit point system.

Prove I'm wrong.
Oh that's right you can't.

Quote from: Sommerjon;543048

QuoteHis confusion of those terms pales in comparison to the scope of his general illiteracy. And his general illiteracy pales in comparison to the claim that none of the actual mechanics of how hit points work are part of the hit point system.

Prove I'm wrong.

Prove which one wrong? The one where you misuse a term that I coined and defined? Or the one where you claimed that the hit point system wasn't part of the hit point system?

Because I think you'll find that I've already proven you wrong on both of those.

(Or you would find that if you weren't illiterate.)

Quote from: Sommerjon;543046Care to explain how 1e hit point recovery is 'abstracted' and 4e/5e is 'disassociated' when
DMG pg82
"Recovery of Hit Points:
When a character loses hit points in combat or to some other attack form (other than being drained of life energy levels), there are a number of different means by which such points can be restored. Clerics and paladins are able to restore such losses by means of spells or innate abilities.
Magical devices such as potions operate much the same way, and a ring of regeneration will cause automatic healing and revitalization in general of its wearer. Commonly it is necessary to resort to the passage of time, however, to restore many characters to full hit point strength.

For game purposes it is absolutely necessary that the character rest in order to recuperate, i.e. any combat, spell using, or similar activity does not constitute rest, so no hit points can be regained. For each day of rest a character will regain 1 hit point, up to and including 7 days. However a
character with a penalty for poor constitution must deduct weekly the penalty score from his or her days of healing, i.e., a -2 for a person means that 5 hit points healing per week is maximum, and the first two days of rest will restore no hit points. After the first week of continuous rest, characters with a bonus for high constitution add the bonus score to the number of hit points they recover due to resting, i.e., the second week of rest will restore 11 (7+4) hit points to a fighter character with an 18 constitution.  Regardless of the number of hit points a character has, 4 weeks of continuous rest will restore any character to full strength."

How does one jump from 27 hitpoints regained to full in one measly day in this so-called 'abstracted' method

I'm going to ignore 4e because it is not only a piece of trash of a D&D game, but it is an Obsolete piece of trash of a D&D game which nobody cares about but you on this thread since it failed miserably. Let's just leave it in the dumpster where it belongs, shall we?

The difference here is something you might have heard about called "actual play". In actual play, characters in AD&D which are out resting in their abode for weeks are not played. They are usually replaced by different player characters who adventure with the group in the meantime. When the player wants to switch back and take control of his resting character once more, either he has rested for less than a month, in which case you calculate the HP recuperation as indicated here, or he's rested more than a month, in which case he is back at full HPs. In either case, the mythical day in which a character would suddenly regain all his hit points does not happen in the game world. No dissociation.

In the 5e case, you can recuperate all your hit points from negative/wounds HPs in 36 hours. This is not a mythical scenario, but something that might occur right there in the game, fairly regularly. If health is part of the HP abstraction in 5e there is a problem, one of a mechanic failing to represent what happens in the world (it takes more than 36 hours to recuperate from sword blows that knocked you unconscious and wounded you), hence, dissociation. UNLESS you define HPs as just being skill and fatigue, in which case I have a problem because (1) actual health is not simulated at all in this game, and (2) this is such a change from the previous baseline of the game as to make this one "not D&D". When I play D&D, I want to play "D&D". Not the game people who hate D&D would like it to be.

Hope this was helpful.

Years ago, I knew a guy who ran an online PBEM (Play By Electronic Mail) game and at one point, while discussing the difficulty of the game, he said out of frustration from the feedback he'd get from players when things went badly for them that he was tempted to program the game to just tell everyone that things went well and that they got richer and more powerful each turn no matter what orders they submitted because that's what it seemed a lot of people wanted.