The Gaming Den

nerd rage needs not reason to fuel its flame

DSMatticus wrote:But I'll be more serious with it: there are things that just don't make sense when you treat HP as plot armor. Tons of them. Falling is the biggest one. Riders are a problem, but you're right, you can change the description of the hit to a "complete miss" (but that's what AC is for) to a "grazing hit" for riders, which leads to the problem that the in-game events changed based on metagame concepts, and that's incoherent. Grapples and being held in a dragon's maw is a problem. Swimming in fucking magma, which has a damage value that a level 20 can survive and a level 1 fighter cannot, and I'm not sure what possible fluff technique a fighter could have for surviving literal magma immersion.

You can make an argument that "HP as wound-reduction" is a bad model, but you are doing a pretty poor job of making that argument.

Falling? You are able to roll with the impact, slow your descent, or in some other way reduce the effect of the fall. This one isn't even hard to rationalize...monks have a built-in falling damage reduction ability, and people have survived tremendous falls in real life without death (in some cases without serious injury).

Grazing injuries? What are you talking about, that "in-game events changed based on metagame concepts"? How? Scoring a hit for 12 points of damage does not correlate to any in-game even other than "scored a hit for 12 points of damage". That sentence literally has no meaning until you say WHO was hit for 12 points of damage, and how many HP they have. There is nothing that corresponds 12 points of damage to any particular amount of trauma to a human body. Even a critical hit is not necessarily a devestating injury...just a devestating blow, which would totally decapitate a low-level fighter but where a high-level fighter can adroitly avoid most of the impact.

Grapples/Dragon's Maw? How are these a problem? Again, it's entirely possible for a dude to be grappled and take NO damage; that doesn't break suspension of disbelief at all. So how is a guy getting grappled or chewed on but only sustaining minor injuries hard to explain?

The only one that does make some sense is the magma bath...but in earlier editions, magma didn't do damage that a 20th level guy could shrug off, it seriously killed you regardless of HP, death no save (unless you had some fire resistance or something). So it wasn't a problem.

PoliteNewb wrote:Falling? You are able to roll with the impact, slow your descent, or in some other way reduce the effect of the fall. This one isn't even hard to rationalize...monks have a built-in falling damage reduction ability, and people have survived tremendous falls in real life without death (in some cases without serious injury).

And then you knock them unconscious and drop them off a cliff, and they still survive. Hell, let's take any unconscious person taking damage. They aren't doing shit to stop it, and they take exactly as much of as when they were awake. Whatever HP do, they work whether your character is aware they're doing it or not.

PoliteNewb wrote:Grazing injuries?

That particular part of the argument is about riders. As in whether an attack is a miss or a grazing hit is going to depend on whether it's poisoned or has some equivalent rider. That is, if HP represent both the ability to dodge and soak damage, but poison always applies on a 'hit,' then all other circumstances being equal characters are less able to dodge weapons because they are poisoned, which is hilarious. The necessary of the narrative dictates the events in-game, which is what I was saying.

PoliteNewb wrote:Grapples/Dragon's Maw?

This was another example of a rider, and also the 'swallow whole' problem. No one ever uses HP to dodge attacks with improved grab. And once you're grappled and swallowed whole, you're in a dragon's stomach 'dodging' an acid bath. Or shrugging off what would have killed you 10 levels ago.

okay so what is the in-character explanation for dailies that makes even a lick of sense.

No one cares what Gygax thinks. End.

I personally think some plot armor and some "tough as nails" are both in the mix for what D&D's idea of what hit points are. But honestly it's MOSTLY the tough as nails approach. Fatigue doesn't deal you HP damage. Being tired, exhausted, or unable to lift your arms to defend yourself isn't HP damage. But in a world where being submerged in Lava deals damage we have to assume it's real actual harm. Because no one's learned how to roll with Lava's punches. It just burns. There's tons and tons more examples of what doesn't deal HP damage that would hurt plot armor and and vice versa but I think the point is clear already

Psychic Robot wrote:okay so what is the in-character explanation for dailies that makes even a lick of sense.

"I can make people fall asleep as often as I like, but I CHOOSE not to!"
"Why?"
"Because I'm a prick"

(Or "Because I'm bitter about not being able to do anything interesting, unlike wizards of a bygone era that we call 'the third-and-a-half great age of magic', so I'm protesting!")

Dailies don't make sense in a non-game context for melee abilities because it enforces an odd hard cap on something that is physically possible.

I can understand Encounter powers as "I've used that trick before and everyone in the room saw it, so it won't work on them" and I can understand Wizards only getting X amount of spells per day because of some stupid bastardized version of Jack Vance's magic system (which isn't meant to cover Lina Inverse or Dark Schneider or Gandalf or really any other kind of wizard who isn't Vancian by way of Gygax), but applying a (stupid) set of restraints to something that is tangibly defined in our world and can be shown to not work at all in the way the game puts it is weird. The fact that 4e powers are so miniscule in effect a lot of the time doesn't help matters.

DSMatticus wrote: But I'll be more serious with it: there are things that just don't make sense when you treat HP as plot armor. Tons of them. Falling is the biggest one. Riders are a problem, but you're right, you can change the description of the hit to a "complete miss" (but that's what AC is for) to a "grazing hit" for riders, which leads to the problem that the in-game events changed based on metagame concepts, and that's incoherent. Grapples and being held in a dragon's maw is a problem. Swimming in fucking magma, which has a damage value that a level 20 can survive and a level 1 fighter cannot, and I'm not sure what possible fluff technique a fighter could have for surviving literal magma immersion.

Falling isn't really a huge deal. People have survived falls from great heights that they shouldn't have. Heroes tend to survive falls in movies all the time, and it's not particularly unbelievable to the point of ruining the story.

The magma and dragon bites are serious issues though. Of course if you do assume that hit points are natural toughness, there's a reverse problem of wondering your equipment survives. Why aren't your leather armor and bag of holding ripped to shreds or melted to nothing from being devoured by a dragon or bathing is magma. Isn't that cloak of resistance getting cut up all the time from those sword slashes? That backpack full of scrolls, probably gone. It's difficult to explain how a dragons fire can melt your shield to slag if the shield is just lying on the floor, but when you're holding it (and presumably using it to deflect dragon fire), it's just fine. In the case of you getting out of the way of the flames, it may make sense, but if you're assuming it's just natural toughness, it's hard to explain how your shield survives when the object destruction rules tell us that it can't survive a full on hit.

Either way hit points have serious narrative issues.

Swordslinger wrote:People have survived falls from great heights that they shouldn't have.

People have survived falls from what is terminal velocity for a human being. No matter what height you're falling from, there is always a chance you'll survive. (If you're ever in that situation, you'll now have an excuse for being optimistic about your impending demise.)

That's not really relevant though, because the ability to survive at that point has absolutely nothing to do with who's doing the falling. There is no way for a level 1 to survive such a fall. There is a way for a level 20 to survive such a fall. So explaining this as "your character just got lucky" is a metagame narrative explanation that completely fails to sync up with the reality of the mechanics (again, our friend disassociation, who is not necessarily evil but some of us don't mind him and some of us want him to die in a fire).

Swordslinger wrote:Of course if you do assume that hit points are natural toughness, there's a reverse problem of wondering your equipment survives.

There are systems with much better blocking rules. I'd like to see shields get destroyed occasionally (and I'd also like them to have statistically relevant defenses, as opposed to their pathetic +2). But either way, most of your equipment at this point is magical, and probably even tougher than you are if I remember the hardness ratings correctly.

You will note, however, that shields do absolutely nothing to protect you from dragon's fire (reflex save, shields only apply to AC). And the mechanics for how shields protect you in D&D is the same as for how armor protects you - you use it to turn aside blows, preventing them from dealing their full force. Presumably, your shield never takes a 'full hit,' you use it like some sort of ridiculous flyswatter against enemy attacks.

I really don't know - I'm with you on this one, I would like to see more shit get destroyed, but it seems like a ridiculous amount of book-keeping.

DSMatticus wrote: That's not really relevant though, because the ability to survive at that point has absolutely nothing to do with who's doing the falling.

Cinematic realism. You're not simulating real life, you're simulating novels, comic books, movies, etc. When Swartzenagger or Stallone fall three stories they tend to survive. When some random extra does it, the fall kills him. We learn to expect that stuff from novels and Hollywood and that's exactly how plot armor works. The more plot armor, the more skilled and lucky you are.

Its the luck of heroes. Wolverine is always more of a badass in his own comic.

I really don't know - I'm with you on this one, I would like to see more shit get destroyed, but it seems like a ridiculous amount of book-keeping.

Yeah the point is that for the most part we just go with what's fun. It'd be a terrible game if all your magic gear kept getting destroyed and rolling out all that crap would be slow.

And at some point the fun aspect takes over above the simulation. Whether you're having heroes who are unnaturally tough or just good at dodging/lucky largely depends on what kind of flavor you want to portray for your game. I'm just saying that whichever way you pick, you're going to have a dissociative mechanic.

deanruel87 wrote:No one cares what Gygax thinks. End.

Well, as one of the guys who invented the system I think his views on it are at least somewhat relevant, if only to show how the argument will never be resolved because there were people with contradictory views on what it represents writing the rules.

HP have always been schizophrenic. Originally they represented wounds in a wargame, however once they increased past realistic levels they were explicitly stated to be "plot armour" in order to keep the low-fantasy vibe the early D&D authors were looking for (Lankhmar & Conan being listed as major inspirations). The problem is the healing rules have always modelled them as major wounds, taking weeks of rest to recover from.

Personally I used to hold to the "plot armour" interpretation because it was what I had seen in the source material, however I am now leaning more towards hp-as-toughness because I feel it fits with the super-powered vibe that permeates D&D. It's plain cooler to have a barbarian take an axe hit square to the chest and laugh it off.

Swordslinger wrote:Cinematic realism. You're not simulating real life, you're simulating novels, comic books, movies, etc. When Swartzenagger or Stallone fall three stories they tend to survive. When some random extra does it, the fall kills him. We learn to expect that stuff from novels and Hollywood and that's exactly how plot armor works. The more plot armor, the more skilled and lucky you are.

Its the luck of heroes. Wolverine is always more of a badass in his own comic.

So how come there isn't any "cinematic realism" in the rest of the system? Cooler stunts get a penalty, not a bonus, if they are more difficult. There isn't any kind of "plot appropriate" bonus that kicks in if you are doing something cinematic. You get more hp for being a Fighter, not for being a main character.

The problem with the interpretation of hp as luck is that its not luck, its a fact that the Barbarian will survive certain falls. He can repeatedly (after some healing) do it without a chance of failure. Thats now how luck works, and its not how cinematic realism works.

"Because he can only gather the strenght to do that once a day".

Done. For making stuff playable, games need to have abstraction. Get over it.

Or play one of the WWII/Napoleonic simulators.

Swordslinger wrote:Its the luck of heroes. Wolverine is always more of a badass in his own comic.

This is a bad example. Wolverine doesn't survive through luck, he survives with a regeneration factor that pretty much makes him unkillable.
If you want a better example of someone who survives through gratuitous plot armor, use The Punisher (but maybe not recently, I hear SHIELD turned him into a zombie or something).

Uh, you do realize that if I can only gather the strength up to do that once a day, I shouldn'tbeable to do much of anything else for the rest of the day.

It also makes no sense, the whole point of training in combat is so that you CAN do that as often as possible.

Additionally, that doesn't work if what you're doing is feigning right, and then stabbing him in the eye.

angelfromanotherpin wrote:Not to mention the part where you were drinking healing potions to restore your ability to twist out of the way.

You know, there are a lot of pitchers in the major leagues who would love to quaff a healing potion between innings. It's bad enough they have to ice themselves down afterwards.

Yea, I know, who gave them the option to get a bonus to hit at the cost of inflicting damage on themselves. Stupid Real World DM.

Seriously, it doesn't take a weapon contact to hurt someone, you could easily pull a muscle avoiding a sword to the chest. The little things do add up over time.

The Gygax explanation of hit points is not really that absurd. What is "absurd" is that given his understanding of what hit points are and how they are not physical damage, he still had a table that crossreferenced weapon type to armor class under the idea that certain armors were better at blocking certain weapons. But if most of the damage is "abstract" anyway, why bother?

deanruel87 wrote:No one cares what Gygax thinks. End.

Yes, you have to give Odysseus a lot of credit for caring for someone who woudn't be born for a thousands of years after he supposedly lived, but that's his style.

sabs wrote:Uh, you do realize that if I can only gather the strength up to do that once a day, I shouldn'tbeable to do much of anything else for the rest of the day.

It also makes no sense, the whole point of training in combat is so that you CAN do that as often as possible.

True, but a lot of things from Dragon Ball Z made no sense. Oh wait, you were talking about D&D. Sorry.

Dragon Ball Z is stupid :0
And totally self-coherent. But then, the characters can SEE their freaking Hit Points and Power levels IN WORLD. So

There is no dissassociation in Dragon Ball Z, because the Characters know they can only do the super cool Fists of a Thousand Strikes once a day.

I'm not sure what this argument is about anymore, something about HP, or something. But here's my two CP. It seems to me that a disassociated mechanic is one that you can't really come up with an explination in game.

But the problem with calling magic in D&D disassociate is that a wizard can explain it in verse. In fact, I've done it before. Playing a wizard wasn't my favorite experience too much book keeping entirely. But anyway, I think the explanation went something like this.

“Casting spells is mentally strenuous, in order to cast a spell effectively I have to focus my entire being on my preparations, the state of perfect concentration takes a great deal of uninterrupted meditation and to maintain such a prolonged state of concentration I must be rested and relaxed.”

It may not be exactly right; after all I’m not all THAT familiar with how it works, but it made sense in the context of the game.

That's not the point. My point is that, unless you are playing a free-form RPG, ALL games need a form of abstraction.

Seriously, get over it.

I mean, this is fucking D&D. A world with everything is super-loaded with Magic. It can handle some Anime logic (oxymoron, I know. But still)

"Because he can only gather the strenght to do that once a day".

Done. For making stuff playable, games need to have abstraction. Get over it.

Or play one of the WWII/Napoleonic simulators.

your intellectual laziness is noted and disregarded.

Except that (Good) Anime actually has association.
Like when Yugi-Ho* pulls a card out of his ass, because he believes in the spirit of the cards.

But if you're going to be a dick and just stick fingers in your ears while chanting, "I'm right, nanananananan I can't hear you", then just stop posting.

* Yes I know the Oxymoron in mentioning Good Anime and then using Yugi-Ho has an example.

"Believe in the heart of the muscle"?
EDIT: But only once a day!

darkmaster wrote:I'm not sure what this argument is about anymore, something about HP, or something. But here's my two CP. It seems to me that a disassociated mechanic is one that you can't really come up with an explination in game.

But the problem with calling magic in D&D disassociate is that a wizard can explain it in verse.

Sure; it might involve making shit up like "the laws of (D&D) magic forbid it", but it's possible.

The same thing applies for non-magical maneuvers. "Every time I try it, I sprain the same muscle and I have to rest before I can do it again" or "It's not sporting to try the same trick too many times" or "You'd be surprised by how infrequently the opportunity to use that trick comes around" or "I don't want to press my luck by hoping that lightning strikes twice, so to speak" or "the laws of (D&D) physics forbid it", etc., etc.

Gx1080 wrote:That's not the point. My point is that, unless you are playing a free-form RPG, ALL games need a form of abstraction.

No one is going to argue with you that RPG's are going to be abstract on some level. We don't care about that.

The issue is that there is no real logic behind why Martial characters can only perform certain maneuvers once a day. Why it's an issue with Martial Characters and not with Magical Characters is because magic does not exist. Magic doesn't (shouldn't) come with any preconceived notions as to how it works. So, if it works in a particular way, most people are going accept whatever explanation that's fed to them because "It's Magic."

Martial characters do not have that luxury. Most people have an understanding of how physical exertion impacts the human body and the concept of martial dailies are not going to line up with that understanding at all.

If Martial characters had been established to also include concepts like Ki and Anime physics, then there wouldn't be any issues to most of this... but they're not. They explicitly represent awesome, but otherwise mundane dudes.