About the backstory stuff, nowadays I dislike it. Anything truly important to the PC should happen at the table. 1st level PCs should not have grandiose origins in most campaigns.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on June 01, 2022, 02:22:16 PM
Another thing to keep in mind is that IIRC Arneson created HP because people got attached to their PCs.

Arneson apparently proposed about 10 HP for starting PCs with no additional HPs later on, but Pcs getting harder to hit.

http://playingattheworld.blogspot.com/2021/10/arnesons-hit-points-for-characters.html

If you want PCs to be truly disposable, you might give each a single 'hit"...

So, it's shades of gray, not black and white.

And even the people that love old-school HP the most might agree that it is strange to imagine 1st level PCs being killed by house cats, or from a 10' fall...

Savage Worlds has a pretty similar metric. Very few critters have more than three wounds. Granted, there's a lot of ways to evade taking one.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on June 01, 2022, 02:22:16 PM
Another thing to keep in mind is that IIRC Arneson created HP because people got attached to their PCs.

Arneson apparently proposed about 10 HP for starting PCs with no additional HPs later on, but Pcs getting harder to hit.

http://playingattheworld.blogspot.com/2021/10/arnesons-hit-points-for-characters.html

If you want PCs to be truly disposable, you might give each a single 'hit"...

So, it's shades of gray, not black and white.

And even the people that love old-school HP the most might agree that it is strange to imagine 1st level PCs being killed by house cats, or from a 10' fall...

Fixed HP at level 1 (perhaps based on your stats?) and being harder to hit as you went up in level would have been better. Also having skills, which apparently Arneson's version had. Instead we got no skills and a miserable amount of HP at level 1, then HP bloat as you reached mid to higher levels.

Quote from: VisionStorm on June 01, 2022, 04:06:04 PM

Quote from: Eric Diaz on June 01, 2022, 02:22:16 PM
Another thing to keep in mind is that IIRC Arneson created HP because people got attached to their PCs.

Arneson apparently proposed about 10 HP for starting PCs with no additional HPs later on, but Pcs getting harder to hit.

http://playingattheworld.blogspot.com/2021/10/arnesons-hit-points-for-characters.html

If you want PCs to be truly disposable, you might give each a single 'hit"...

So, it's shades of gray, not black and white.

And even the people that love old-school HP the most might agree that it is strange to imagine 1st level PCs being killed by house cats, or from a 10' fall...

Fixed HP at level 1 (perhaps based on your stats?) and being harder to hit as you went up in level would have been better. Also having skills, which apparently Arneson's version had. Instead we got no skills and a miserable amount of HP at level 1, then HP bloat as you reached mid to higher levels.

Would it? Because we already have that in reverse for old school D&D, where low level characters tend to miss a lot, and then become more accurate as they go up in level. Which makes low-level combat very swingy, with survival often hinging on a single good roll. You're proposing making high level combat very swingy. Countering that is the reason why hit points escalate. Because they're a meter that can be used to assess how close your character is to death, and a resource that can be managed. It makes high level combat more stable, and random death before the player is able to react less likely (barring saves, of course).

Greetings!

I think having some well-detailed and campaign-appropriate background development is awesome.

I also think having some kind of maniacal zeal for the player characters to all somehow be shallow, nihilistic, misanthropic misfits stuck wearing "Star Trek" Redshirts lacks creativity, and is an unfortunate attitude to embrace.

Yes, I also loathe players that would seek to have character backgrounds that are ridiculous uber-superhero wankfests.

In my view, Players should be mature, responsible, and reasonably devoted or committed to the DM's campaign world. There is, in fact, a middle ground between the two aforementioned extremes.

Merely because a Character is Level 1, does not mean that such a character may not have an interesting, detailed, and campaign-appropriate background. Characters often want to know about their parents, their siblings, their friends. Characters often have other social connections made while growing up, and going through adolescence and into adulthood. Connections, friends, mentors, made through work, through study and schooling, through church or their tribal, Pagan religion. Romances can be important and meaningful. On occasion, family friends can be important, as well as extended family, like grandparents, uncles, aunts, and cousins.

Player Characters are Classes. Presumably, such classes entail some degree of professional study and training. Wizards, Clerics, Fighters, Rangers, etc.--all would have professional training. It is also likely that the Player Characters would form important relationships with their instructors, mentors, and fellow students or recruits.

My campaign world of Thandor features many Historical/Ancient/Dark Ages elements. Many characters likely come from barbarian tribes. Tribal people are deeply connected socially to their friends, family, and tribe. Religion and spirituality are also extremely important. Even when Characters come from a civilized background, many such backgrounds embrace the importance of family, kin, tribe, and community. Religious life involving the local temple or Church is also often hugely important to virtually everyone.

Characters, whether NPC's or Player Characters, benefit immensely from having detailed, appropriate backgrounds that serve to further immerse and anchor them into the campaign world. Such detail and depth furthermore serves to add dimension and active dynamics to the campaign's localized environment. Future adventures, actual realistic motivations, inspiring genuine passions, are derived from such depth of backgrounds. Embracing more detailed, appropriate backgrounds enriches the Player's experience, as well as the campaign as a whole.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Pat on June 01, 2022, 04:48:32 PM

Quote from: VisionStorm on June 01, 2022, 04:06:04 PM

Quote from: Eric Diaz on June 01, 2022, 02:22:16 PM
Another thing to keep in mind is that IIRC Arneson created HP because people got attached to their PCs.

Arneson apparently proposed about 10 HP for starting PCs with no additional HPs later on, but Pcs getting harder to hit.

http://playingattheworld.blogspot.com/2021/10/arnesons-hit-points-for-characters.html

If you want PCs to be truly disposable, you might give each a single 'hit"...

So, it's shades of gray, not black and white.

And even the people that love old-school HP the most might agree that it is strange to imagine 1st level PCs being killed by house cats, or from a 10' fall...

Fixed HP at level 1 (perhaps based on your stats?) and being harder to hit as you went up in level would have been better. Also having skills, which apparently Arneson's version had. Instead we got no skills and a miserable amount of HP at level 1, then HP bloat as you reached mid to higher levels.

Would it? Because we already have that in reverse for old school D&D, where low level characters tend to miss a lot, and then become more accurate as they go up in level. Which makes low-level combat very swingy, with survival often hinging on a single good roll. You're proposing making high level combat very swingy. Countering that is the reason why hit points escalate. Because they're a meter that can be used to assess how close your character is to death, and a resource that can be managed. It makes high level combat more stable, and random death before the player is able to react less likely (barring saves, of course).

That did cross my mind briefly after I posted that, but it depends on how high the defense bonus is and what type of enemies you're facing. If defense progression isn't as high as attack progression it might make things less swingy. And swinginess will only be a factor against high defense enemies regardless. Low level mobs and enemies with penalties to defense (such as large creatures) would still be easier to hit as you advance in level.

Making defense a roll could help reduce the felling of swinginess as well, by turning defense into an evasive action characters get to make to avoid getting hit. Granted, this arguably only disguises the swinginess, but it changes the dynamic a bit by turning combat into a series of evasion attempts, tracking only the hits that actually get through, rather than soaking damage with massive HP. Which arguably emulates skilled combat better than incremental HP.

Ideally, I'd probably prefer a combination of both: Defense Bonuses, and minimal HP  increase per level. That way higher level characters still get some increase in raw survivability, but the ability to survive still relies primarily on skill and not getting hit.

Quote from: Persimmon on May 30, 2022, 12:08:38 PM

Anyhow, do you do anything to help low level PCs survive?  Or do you just embrace the lethality and let the dice fall where they may?

Like many others, I allow my OSR characters to begin with max hp rolls. Most are still facing death from a single hit. Because I never allow resurrection magic in my settings, I give characters a second advantage as well. They get a death save if a friend (who used an inventory slot to carry bandages and splints) is able to apply them after the fight. If they succeed on the save, they are merely unconscious for a few days and must be carried to safety. This inevitably ends the current mission. Of course a failed save is death.

I enjoy those rules because they are still lethal enough that I find myself constantly pulling for the players, hoping they won't die. In contrast, when running 5e, I sometimes catch myself hoping the players make a mistake so that things can get challenging enough that someone might actually die. It's rare, but has happened. I much prefer running games with rules that let me cheer for the players, rather than the monsters.

Quote from: SHARK on June 01, 2022, 06:23:35 PM
Greetings!

I think having some well-detailed and campaign-appropriate background development is awesome.

I also think having some kind of maniacal zeal for the player characters to all somehow be shallow, nihilistic, misanthropic misfits stuck wearing "Star Trek" Redshirts lacks creativity, and is an unfortunate attitude to embrace.

Yes, I also loathe players that would seek to have character backgrounds that are ridiculous uber-superhero wankfests.

In my view, Players should be mature, responsible, and reasonably devoted or committed to the DM's campaign world. There is, in fact, a middle ground between the two aforementioned extremes.

Merely because a Character is Level 1, does not mean that such a character may not have an interesting, detailed, and campaign-appropriate background. Characters often want to know about their parents, their siblings, their friends. Characters often have other social connections made while growing up, and going through adolescence and into adulthood. Connections, friends, mentors, made through work, through study and schooling, through church or their tribal, Pagan religion. Romances can be important and meaningful. On occasion, family friends can be important, as well as extended family, like grandparents, uncles, aunts, and cousins.

Player Characters are Classes. Presumably, such classes entail some degree of professional study and training. Wizards, Clerics, Fighters, Rangers, etc.--all would have professional training. It is also likely that the Player Characters would form important relationships with their instructors, mentors, and fellow students or recruits.

My campaign world of Thandor features many Historical/Ancient/Dark Ages elements. Many characters likely come from barbarian tribes. Tribal people are deeply connected socially to their friends, family, and tribe. Religion and spirituality are also extremely important. Even when Characters come from a civilized background, many such backgrounds embrace the importance of family, kin, tribe, and community. Religious life involving the local temple or Church is also often hugely important to virtually everyone.

Characters, whether NPC's or Player Characters, benefit immensely from having detailed, appropriate backgrounds that serve to further immerse and anchor them into the campaign world. Such detail and depth furthermore serves to add dimension and active dynamics to the campaign's localized environment. Future adventures, actual realistic motivations, inspiring genuine passions, are derived from such depth of backgrounds. Embracing more detailed, appropriate backgrounds enriches the Player's experience, as well as the campaign as a whole.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Well developed, campaign appropriate backgrounds are golden, and I'd probably prefer this approach, or short but sweet backgrounds, to other alternatives (no-background red shirts, or crazy fanfic backgrounds in a vacuum). The trick is making something appropriate that ties the character to the world, gives everyone a general idea of what their like, where they come from and what their motivations might be, and perhaps a couple of hooks that might come up during play.

Maybe your character was a street urchin who's running from their home town cuz they stole something from their old guild leader and now the guild is after him. That gives us something that could come up any time the group is in a big city, and a prospect for side adventures and such. But telling me a story of woe about how your level 1 character somehow fought off the entire guild and killed the leader on their own is BS fanfic.

At the other end of the spectrum, disposable no-background characters are only good if 1) you're running quick and dirty gritty action games, and 2) scheduling a game is so easy for you, tossing newly made characters away every session is a luxury you can afford. But from a practical PoV, if you're into more serious, immersive play, and/or you can only game so often, then making characters disposable becomes a hindrance. That doesn't mean characters shouldn't die, but I'd prefer they did cuz players did something stupid, not cuz HP are so low, dying is just a random roll of the die any time they get hit.

Quote from: VisionStorm on June 01, 2022, 07:03:19 PM

Quote from: SHARK on June 01, 2022, 06:23:35 PM
Greetings!

I think having some well-detailed and campaign-appropriate background development is awesome.

I also think having some kind of maniacal zeal for the player characters to all somehow be shallow, nihilistic, misanthropic misfits stuck wearing "Star Trek" Redshirts lacks creativity, and is an unfortunate attitude to embrace.

Yes, I also loathe players that would seek to have character backgrounds that are ridiculous uber-superhero wankfests.

In my view, Players should be mature, responsible, and reasonably devoted or committed to the DM's campaign world. There is, in fact, a middle ground between the two aforementioned extremes.

Merely because a Character is Level 1, does not mean that such a character may not have an interesting, detailed, and campaign-appropriate background. Characters often want to know about their parents, their siblings, their friends. Characters often have other social connections made while growing up, and going through adolescence and into adulthood. Connections, friends, mentors, made through work, through study and schooling, through church or their tribal, Pagan religion. Romances can be important and meaningful. On occasion, family friends can be important, as well as extended family, like grandparents, uncles, aunts, and cousins.

Player Characters are Classes. Presumably, such classes entail some degree of professional study and training. Wizards, Clerics, Fighters, Rangers, etc.--all would have professional training. It is also likely that the Player Characters would form important relationships with their instructors, mentors, and fellow students or recruits.

My campaign world of Thandor features many Historical/Ancient/Dark Ages elements. Many characters likely come from barbarian tribes. Tribal people are deeply connected socially to their friends, family, and tribe. Religion and spirituality are also extremely important. Even when Characters come from a civilized background, many such backgrounds embrace the importance of family, kin, tribe, and community. Religious life involving the local temple or Church is also often hugely important to virtually everyone.

Characters, whether NPC's or Player Characters, benefit immensely from having detailed, appropriate backgrounds that serve to further immerse and anchor them into the campaign world. Such detail and depth furthermore serves to add dimension and active dynamics to the campaign's localized environment. Future adventures, actual realistic motivations, inspiring genuine passions, are derived from such depth of backgrounds. Embracing more detailed, appropriate backgrounds enriches the Player's experience, as well as the campaign as a whole.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Well developed, campaign appropriate backgrounds are golden, and I'd probably prefer this approach, or short but sweet backgrounds, to other alternatives (no-background red shirts, or crazy fanfic backgrounds in a vacuum). The trick is making something appropriate that ties the character to the world, gives everyone a general idea of what their like, where they come from and what their motivations might be, and perhaps a couple of hooks that might come up during play.

Maybe your character was a street urchin who's running from their home town cuz they stole something from their old guild leader and now the guild is after him. That gives us something that could come up any time the group is in a big city, and a prospect for side adventures and such. But telling me a story of woe about how your level 1 character somehow fought off the entire guild and killed the leader on their own is BS fanfic.

At the other end of the spectrum, disposable no-background characters are only good if 1) you're running quick and dirty gritty action games, and 2) scheduling a game is so easy for you, tossing newly made characters away every session is a luxury you can afford. But from a practical PoV, if you're into more serious, immersive play, and/or you can only game so often, then making characters disposable becomes a hindrance. That doesn't mean characters shouldn't die, but I'd prefer they did cuz players did something stupid, not cuz HP are so low, dying is just a random roll of the die any time they get hit.

Greetings!

Right on, my friend! I agree.

I suppose many people that have this hate for "Backgrounds" have played with retarded strangers that make up ridiculous Fanfic backgrounds, as you say.

I have almost entirely played with family and friends, aside from occasional conventions, and visits to the game groups at my local game store. All of my regular players--without exception--delight in making detailed, appropriate backgrounds for their characters. They all know me, they have a good grasp of the campaign world, and they respect it. They know I wouldn't tolerate bullshit. Farmers, milk-maid girls, rat catchers from the nearby town, students of a local wizard or witch, a young recruit fresh from training and study at the local church or monastery. They always make very interesting and cool characters, with interesting and appropriate backgrounds. Family, friends, romances, neighbors, local people from their neighborhood or village. It's all outstanding!

So when people scream about "Backgrounds" I often wonder what the fuck they are talking about. ALL of my players make up cool backgrounds. I expect them to. A DM not allowing or encouraging good backgrounds is really missing out. Having appropriate backgrounds with detail and depth add development, inspiration, and enrichment to the entire game.

Oh yeah. As a DM, I often plunder my player's backgrounds ruthlessly for a whole host of NPC's, dramatic elements, cultural details, all kinds of things! I then blend it into the campaign background material as a whole. I like having my players contribute to building the campaign world, and in the process, they become more immersed into their characters, the campaign world, and everything benefits.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Omega on June 01, 2022, 11:29:38 AMkeep in mind that early D&D was more about avoiding combat as much as possible.

Exactly. In the AD&D1e PHB on p.109, under the heading SUCCESSFUL ADVENTURES, they write,

Quote"Avoid unnecessary encounters. [...]  Run first and ask questions later. [...] shun encounters with creatures found to be dwelling permanently in the dungeon unless such creatures are part of the set objective or the monster stands between the group and the goal it has set out to gain. Do not be sidetracked. A good referee will have many ways to distract an expedition, many things to draw attention, but ignore them if at all possible."

[emphasis in original]

Note carefully what's being said here: combat is not the aim of the game, as such. The DM is just trying to distract you from your proper goals.

This is why combat is deadly in 1e: to punish players dumb enough to fall for the DM's tricks. The dumb player's character will die, the player will (we hope) learn, and their next character will be less likely to die. If you as DM make combat less deadly, you are giving players a license to be stupid and never learn. But mastery of a game is part of its fun, so you are taking away part of the fun of the game.

Don't do that.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron on June 02, 2022, 03:36:38 AM

Quote from: Omega on June 01, 2022, 11:29:38 AMkeep in mind that early D&D was more about avoiding combat as much as possible.

Exactly. In the AD&D1e PHB on p.109, under the heading SUCCESSFUL ADVENTURES, they write,

Quote"Avoid unnecessary encounters. [...]  Run first and ask questions later. [...] shun encounters with creatures found to be dwelling permanently in the dungeon unless such creatures are part of the set objective or the monster stands between the group and the goal it has set out to gain. Do not be sidetracked. A good referee will have many ways to distract an expedition, many things to draw attention, but ignore them if at all possible."

[emphasis in original]

Note carefully what's being said here: combat is not the aim of the game, as such. The DM is just trying to distract you from your proper goals.

This is why combat is deadly in 1e: to punish players dumb enough to fall for the DM's tricks. The dumb player's character will die, the player will (we hope) learn, and their next character will be less likely to die. If you as DM make combat less deadly, you are giving players a license to be stupid and never learn. But mastery of a game is part of its fun, so you are taking away part of the fun of the game.

Don't do that.

One analogy I think works well is the heist.

The goal is to get in and out of the dungeon with the treasure, using your wits and stealth to bypass the traps and avoid the guards.

My 1E perspective on this is old school is NOT lethal. It's just fast. There's a reason AD&D uses 1-minute rounds. It's so you can get through very large battles without it taking up the whole session and you can get on with the adventure.

The baseline figure in 1E is the 0th level human. These generally die in one hit, and it's by design, that way it's possible to manage large scale battles without having to track hit points for a hundred different guys. What makes one 0th level human tougher than the next is the AC. And that cues you in, that the baseline expectation for a less lethal game is to not get hit in the first place.

One complaint I often hear is 1st level magic-users have just one spell, one thing they can do, then they're done until they can rest and re-memorize. Well, if you have a 1st level fighter and get lucky on your hit point roll, you get to get hit just once before you become a one-hit-kill like everyone else. So the fighter only gets to do one thing--take one hit--then they can't use their class function without risking death. If you're a thief, with the probabilities for success at 1st level, let's say you come across 3 locks, you'll tend to be successful at picking 1 of them. That's your one thing.

I think the key is, you can't lean on your class functions. They can't be your first go to. That the game is actually a test of your imagination and your wits. And your class abilities at best might bail you out of a situation if you get in trouble.

Tenser was once a 1st level magic user who started knowing only Read Magic. He often crawled through dungeons in small parties, or even solo. You might ask yourself, what must have been true for that to be viable.

I tested the viability against Appendix A for the sake of trying to remain neutral with regard to DM style. The most dangerous thing on the Level I monster list are giant ants. It's possible to outrun most other monsters on the table. Elves are quick with a 12" movement, but at least it's possible to negotiate with elves. Giant ants are 2 HD and move at 15". However, per the evasion/pursuit rules, you can usually escape by throwing down some food. So just be sure to carry food when you enter the dungeon. Avoid engaging in combat unless you have to.

So I don't think it takes any conscious effort on the DM to make adventures that are more survivable. Although many may have to stop doing things that make the game harder to survive, like holding the expectation for it to be a slug-fest and constantly pushing PCs in that direction. It may take a major paradigm shift for players, however, to re-learn to play the game. How to practice prudence while still often having courage. Nothing will kill the game faster than players lacking courage.

That's my take on it anyway.

Quote from: Lunamancer on June 02, 2022, 08:30:35 AM
My 1E perspective on this is old school is NOT lethal. It's just fast. There's a reason AD&D uses 1-minute rounds. It's so you can get through very large battles without it taking up the whole session and you can get on with the adventure.

The baseline figure in 1E is the 0th level human. These generally die in one hit, and it's by design, that way it's possible to manage large scale battles without having to track hit points for a hundred different guys. What makes one 0th level human tougher than the next is the AC. And that cues you in, that the baseline expectation for a less lethal game is to not get hit in the first place.

One complaint I often hear is 1st level magic-users have just one spell, one thing they can do, then they're done until they can rest and re-memorize. Well, if you have a 1st level fighter and get lucky on your hit point roll, you get to get hit just once before you become a one-hit-kill like everyone else. So the fighter only gets to do one thing--take one hit--then they can't use their class function without risking death. If you're a thief, with the probabilities for success at 1st level, let's say you come across 3 locks, you'll tend to be successful at picking 1 of them. That's your one thing.

I think the key is, you can't lean on your class functions. They can't be your first go to. That the game is actually a test of your imagination and your wits. And your class abilities at best might bail you out of a situation if you get in trouble.

Tenser was once a 1st level magic user who started knowing only Read Magic. He often crawled through dungeons in small parties, or even solo. You might ask yourself, what must have been true for that to be viable.

I tested the viability against Appendix A for the sake of trying to remain neutral with regard to DM style. The most dangerous thing on the Level I monster list are giant ants. It's possible to outrun most other monsters on the table. Elves are quick with a 12" movement, but at least it's possible to negotiate with elves. Giant ants are 2 HD and move at 15". However, per the evasion/pursuit rules, you can usually escape by throwing down some food. So just be sure to carry food when you enter the dungeon. Avoid engaging in combat unless you have to.

So I don't think it takes any conscious effort on the DM to make adventures that are more survivable. Although many may have to stop doing things that make the game harder to survive, like holding the expectation for it to be a slug-fest and constantly pushing PCs in that direction. It may take a major paradigm shift for players, however, to re-learn to play the game. How to practice prudence while still often having courage. Nothing will kill the game faster than players lacking courage.

That's my take on it anyway.

One of the problems with this is that D&D and most TTRPGs in general are not about large scale battles, but individual confrontations, so this starts off with the wrong set of assumptions right from the start. I get that the game started out being derived from war games, but creating your own individual character and going into the micro level is about the complete opposite of looking at things from a bird's eye view while managing massive numbers of troops. Getting rid of individual units as quickly as possible so you can go to the next and keep a large scale battle moving is the wrong focus for a game centered around individual characters—not nameless "units", but CHARACTERS with hopes and aspirations, personalities and motivations for going out on adventure.

This approach to handling the game is at odds with the idea of engaging in immersive play where you get to play the role of a character taking part in an adventure, not a nameless disposable unit in a large scale battlefield. And it doesn't even work long term cuz eventually characters keep piling up HP as they go up in level, so that the game is in conflict with its own core set of assumptions when it comes to progression. First it gives everyone a pitiful amount of HP at level 0 or 1 (which have NO functional difference, by the way) so they can be discarded as quickly as possible, like units in a large scale battle that 99% of the time is not even gonna happen in a TTRPG, then it lets characters pile up an equal amount of HP every time they level up, which serves the opposite function.

Stuff like this is why some critics say that D&D incoherent—it can't keep up with what its focus is supposed to be.

Quote from: VisionStorm on June 02, 2022, 10:01:04 AM
Stuff like this is why some critics say that D&D incoherent—it can't keep up with what its focus is supposed to be.

  I don't know that I'd say it's incoherent, but long years of observation and research have convinced me that the end for which people have generally been using (A)D&D since the explosion in popularity in the early 80s is not the purpose for which the game was designed.

   The game as designed is meant to be a mix of dungeon-delving, wargaming, and domain management in an open-ended, continuously evolving, multipolar world. The game as played has typically focused on the dungeon-delving or fantasy adventure centered around a fixed band of characters.

    There are two erroneous conclusions I've seen drawn from this:

    1. D&D is a badly designed game and not worth playing;
    2. D&D is a good game, so everyone who wants something else out of it should either change their minds and embrace the Gygaxian method, or get out of the hobby altogether.

Quote from: VisionStorm on June 01, 2022, 04:06:04 PM

Quote from: Eric Diaz on June 01, 2022, 02:22:16 PM
Another thing to keep in mind is that IIRC Arneson created HP because people got attached to their PCs.

Arneson apparently proposed about 10 HP for starting PCs with no additional HPs later on, but Pcs getting harder to hit.

http://playingattheworld.blogspot.com/2021/10/arnesons-hit-points-for-characters.html

If you want PCs to be truly disposable, you might give each a single 'hit"...

So, it's shades of gray, not black and white.

And even the people that love old-school HP the most might agree that it is strange to imagine 1st level PCs being killed by house cats, or from a 10' fall...

Fixed HP at level 1 (perhaps based on your stats?) and being harder to hit as you went up in level would have been better. Also having skills, which apparently Arneson's version had. Instead we got no skills and a miserable amount of HP at level 1, then HP bloat as you reached mid to higher levels.

An interesting alternative is offered by the new game Against the Darkmaster..  You get a bunch of starting hit points based on kin (race), culture, and vocation (class).  Then you might get more as you level up, or not, unless you buy development points in that area.  So you could start with 85 hp (as a warrior) or 55 (as an animist) at 1st level, but you'll gain fewer in comparison to D&D as you level up.  Of course they have lethal critical tables, but this still offers a bit more of a buffer at low levels.  Once we play this game a few times, I'll have a better sense of how it works in practice.