Quote from: Effete on August 31, 2023, 04:18:42 PM
Well, you're logically inconsistent arguments haven't done much to convince me.

There is nothing inconsistent about my arguments.  They are the same every time.   Perhaps you have a comprehension problem.

Quote from: GhostNinja on August 31, 2023, 02:01:07 PM

Quote from: Exploderwizard on August 31, 2023, 12:53:39 PM
Hit points have nothing to do with realism. Slow natural recovery simply makes the game more challenging. Those who want to play a challenging game play classic D&D.

That's the way D&D was and it makes sense.  Losing 40 hit points and then sleeping for 8 hours and bam your ok is just stupid.   No one sleeps for 8 hours and is fine, which is way hospitals exist.

Max HP going up with experience levels doesn't make much sense either, yet it's a staple of D&D.  I understand what you're getting at, but it's just that logic seems to be selectively applied here by preferences in game mechanics.

Quote from: Nameless Mist on August 31, 2023, 04:13:33 PM
Their D10 system with health levels instead of HP can mean instadeath more often than your typical D&D game, at least for 2E and beyond.

You never played with a GM like Gary then.  Or, others that ran the game as intended.

Quote from: Scooter on August 31, 2023, 04:37:26 PM

Quote from: Nameless Mist on August 31, 2023, 04:13:33 PM
Their D10 system with health levels instead of HP can mean instadeath more often than your typical D&D game, at least for 2E and beyond.

You never played with a GM like Gary then.  Or, others that ran the game as intended.

I've never played 1E or its variations.  My introduction was with 2E, which was fun, but I prefer 3/3.5E, which is why I also enjoy Pathfinder 1E.

Quote from: Nameless Mist on August 31, 2023, 04:39:58 PM

Quote from: Scooter on August 31, 2023, 04:37:26 PM

Quote from: Nameless Mist on August 31, 2023, 04:13:33 PM
Their D10 system with health levels instead of HP can mean instadeath more often than your typical D&D game, at least for 2E and beyond.

You never played with a GM like Gary then.  Or, others that ran the game as intended.

I've never played 1E or its variations.  My introduction was with 2E, which was fun, but I prefer 3/3.5E, which is why I also enjoy Pathfinder 1E.

2E is just about as deadly if run as designed. 

Quote from: Scooter on August 31, 2023, 04:41:11 PM

Quote from: Nameless Mist on August 31, 2023, 04:39:58 PM

Quote from: Scooter on August 31, 2023, 04:37:26 PM

Quote from: Nameless Mist on August 31, 2023, 04:13:33 PM
Their D10 system with health levels instead of HP can mean instadeath more often than your typical D&D game, at least for 2E and beyond.

You never played with a GM like Gary then.  Or, others that ran the game as intended.

I've never played 1E or its variations.  My introduction was with 2E, which was fun, but I prefer 3/3.5E, which is why I also enjoy Pathfinder 1E.

2E is just about as deadly if run as designed.

I played that back in middle school with some peers, so I figure we might not have understood the rules in the same way as adults would.

Quote from: GhostNinja on August 31, 2023, 04:20:00 PM

Quote from: Effete on August 31, 2023, 04:18:42 PM
Well, you're logically inconsistent arguments haven't done much to convince me.

There is nothing inconsistent about my arguments.  They are the same every time.   Perhaps you have a comprehension problem.

You can't truly be this disingenuous.

I said the argument was LOGICALLY inconsistent, not that you were contradicting yourself. The claim, according to you, is that risk of death makes characters more heroic. I countered by asking if Achilles wasn't a hero then, or if a thieving bastard was a hero due to his low HP.

When the game gives you superheroes (as you put it) right from CharGen, then you challenge them with superhero problems. Superman cannot be challenged by physical force, so his problems often stem from making difficult moral decisions. Like in Sam Raimi's Spiderman: "Save the woman you love, or suffer the little children."

All I'm saying is the 5e system is offering a different type of experience than classic DnD. You don't need to like it, but that doesn't make the system itself flawed (the woke garbage is another matter). I'm not sure how this is controversal when you seem to actually agree with me by saying "it's DnD in name only."

Quote from: GhostNinja on August 31, 2023, 02:01:07 PM
You can play a hero and and tell a story with the earlier editions   The difference is that the older editions don't make characters superheroes at first level.  5e is made so everyone wins and characters are almost difficult to die (because so many people have a fit about characters dying.

In games like OSE characters arent going to go into every room and not fight everyone because there is a real chance of dying.   searching isnt one skill and bam I know everything about the room.   Players have to role playing searching.

Independent of what one thinks of 5E, I played lots of superhero games in the 1980s and 1990s -- like Champions and Marvel Superheroes. Yes, it was difficult to die in those systems -- but it could still be challenging by having tough opposition and goals other than just kill-or-be-killed.

The deadliness of a game isn't the same as how challenging it is.

Quote from: Nameless Mist on August 31, 2023, 04:24:31 PM

Quote from: GhostNinja on August 31, 2023, 02:01:07 PM

Quote from: Exploderwizard on August 31, 2023, 12:53:39 PM
Hit points have nothing to do with realism. Slow natural recovery simply makes the game more challenging. Those who want to play a challenging game play classic D&D.

That's the way D&D was and it makes sense.  Losing 40 hit points and then sleeping for 8 hours and bam your ok is just stupid.   No one sleeps for 8 hours and is fine, which is way hospitals exist.

Max HP going up with experience levels doesn't make much sense either, yet it's a staple of D&D.  I understand what you're getting at, but it's just that logic seems to be selectively applied here by preferences in game mechanics.

Yeah, I mean... Guys, c'mon. D&D has been out for 48 years, and for 48 years (at least as far as I know, I wasn't even born for a couple mor years) people have known HP are an abstraction. I know it was well talked about in the late 80s when I got in to gaming, at the very least. I mean, if you try to look at it rationally, a 1d4 commoner can sleep off a near-fatal wound reducing him to 1hp in a couple of days. He's tougher than a 10th level fighter, who will be down for many weeks potentially from being reduced to 1hp.

It really breaks if you try to think too hard about it and assign it too much credible verisimilitude. It's not that type of system.

Quote from: Bruwulf on August 31, 2023, 05:42:20 PM

Quote from: Nameless Mist on August 31, 2023, 04:24:31 PM

Quote from: GhostNinja on August 31, 2023, 02:01:07 PM

Quote from: Exploderwizard on August 31, 2023, 12:53:39 PM
Hit points have nothing to do with realism. Slow natural recovery simply makes the game more challenging. Those who want to play a challenging game play classic D&D.

That's the way D&D was and it makes sense.  Losing 40 hit points and then sleeping for 8 hours and bam your ok is just stupid.   No one sleeps for 8 hours and is fine, which is way hospitals exist.

Max HP going up with experience levels doesn't make much sense either, yet it's a staple of D&D.  I understand what you're getting at, but it's just that logic seems to be selectively applied here by preferences in game mechanics.

Yeah, I mean... Guys, c'mon. D&D has been out for 48 years, and for 48 years (at least as far as I know, I wasn't even born for a couple mor years) people have known HP are an abstraction. I know it was well talked about in the late 80s when I got in to gaming, at the very least. I mean, if you try to look at it rationally, a 1d4 commoner can sleep off a near-fatal wound reducing him to 1hp in a couple of days. He's tougher than a 10th level fighter, who will be down for many weeks potentially from being reduced to 1hp.

It really breaks if you try to think too hard about it and assign it too much credible verisimilitude. It's not that type of system.

Pretty much.  Granted, this is why I like the concept of Health Levels more than HP, and with no experience levels involved either, so that they don't generally go up.

But yeah, as long as a HP system is in place, it's not really that much of a stretch to have players fully heal from a rest anymore than it is a stretch to think that more experience somehow gives you exponentially more ability to take damage.

I suppose the concept of healing magic is easier to suspend disbelief for, while the details of HP become a matter of preference rather than of logic.

The problem with overnight healing has very little to do with realism. 

If you get back hit points slow, after being hurt, it might be slightly more "realistic".  But hit points are already so abstract and unrealistic, that seems like a strange argument to make.  It's like arguing fine grades of hotness on different types of really spicy peppers to a person that runs from mild jalapeno fumes.

It's much more a game play issue.

If you get back hit points slow, then it's easier for the players to make choices that end up grinding them down, and it's easier for the GM to adjudicate the consequences in ways that will produce meaningful results. That in turn opens up all kinds of options about resource and time management.  If you get hit points back quick, then those options go away--or at least get heavily minimized. 

It doesn't matter much if you get all your hit points back overnight because the game said you did, or because cure light wounds wands are cheap and plentiful or because everyone is passing around that super regeneration ring.  If the GM has set it up so that recovery isn't a problem, then it isn't.   Of course, it matters a little, because some people find some of those ways of justifying getting them all back relatively fast more palatable than others.  3E, 3.5E, 4E, and 5E are no different on this point.  They just use a different means to get there.  If a GM runs B/X or AD&D or even OD&D by selling healing potions in mass at every town, then that would pretty much put paid to that aspect of those games, too. 

If you want a meaningful difference in play, then whatever construct for healing (or anything else for that matter) that is allowing the players to ignore one of the core challenges of the game, has to be kept under control one way or the other. 

Quote from: Nameless Mist on August 31, 2023, 06:38:57 PM
Pretty much.  Granted, this is why I like the concept of Health Levels more than HP, and with no experience levels involved either, so that they don't generally go up.

But yeah, as long as a HP system is in place, it's not really that much of a stretch to have players fully heal from a rest anymore than it is a stretch to think that more experience somehow gives you exponentially more ability to take damage.

This is going a bit off topic, but I need to respond. There are games that use Hit Points but treat them like wound levels. Cyberpunk, for instance, has a formula for determining HP, but it rarely increases over the course of play. Dropping below half HP imposes penalties. Recovering HP is also slow if you heal "naturally," encouraging players to spend money on professional care.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on August 31, 2023, 07:00:34 PM
The problem with overnight healing has very little to do with realism. 

If you get back hit points slow, after being hurt, it might be slightly more "realistic".  But hit points are already so abstract and unrealistic, that seems like a strange argument to make.  It's like arguing fine grades of hotness on different types of really spicy peppers to a person that runs from mild jalapeno fumes.

It's much more a game play issue.

If you get back hit points slow, then it's easier for the players to make choices that end up grinding them down, and it's easier for the GM to adjudicate the consequences in ways that will produce meaningful results. That in turn opens up all kinds of options about resource and time management.  If you get hit points back quick, then those options go away--or at least get heavily minimized. 

It doesn't matter much if you get all your hit points back overnight because the game said you did, or because cure light wounds wands are cheap and plentiful or because everyone is passing around that super regeneration ring.  If the GM has set it up so that recovery isn't a problem, then it isn't.   Of course, it matters a little, because some people find some of those ways of justifying getting them all back relatively fast more palatable than others.  3E, 3.5E, 4E, and 5E are no different on this point.  They just use a different means to get there.  If a GM runs B/X or AD&D or even OD&D by selling healing potions in mass at every town, then that would pretty much put paid to that aspect of those games, too. 

If you want a meaningful difference in play, then whatever construct for healing (or anything else for that matter) that is allowing the players to ignore one of the core challenges of the game, has to be kept under control one way or the other.

To be clear, I don't disagree with this.

For myself, I admit that I sort of hand wave some of the downtime mechanics. I don't care if the mage takes eleven days to recover and the fighter takes twenty two days to recover, or whatever. That sort of minutia has never been, to me, what the game is about. But on the other hand, it rubs me the wrong way when players don't appreciate that getting wounded is really a big deal. And even since the beginning, with clerical healing, it's never been a huge problem, so... I don't know. I don't know what the right solution is, and I think it's going to be different for every group.

I just don't like when people try to get too anal about "healing" hit point damage, or try to take hitpoints as some concrete in-world unit, rather than a game mechanic. It gets very silly, very quick.

Quote from: Bruwulf on August 31, 2023, 07:41:27 PM

I just don't like when people try to get too anal about "healing" hit point damage, or try to take hitpoints as some concrete in-world unit, rather than a game mechanic. It gets very silly, very quick.

Well yeah, that's kind of the point.  Determine what you need to do to get the game play you want.  Then rationalize it the game world however makes sense to you.  What other people on the outside think about it is pointless--unless it helps you make that game play even better or the rationalizations even more palatable. 

Quote from: Nameless Mist on August 31, 2023, 04:43:11 PM

I played that back in middle school with some peers, so I figure we might not have understood the rules in the same way as adults would.

Of course.  Most kids play that way.  Nothing wrong with that.