Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;673872Folks, Kiero is right this time.  What he's pointed out is the difference between what a thing is said to be and what it actually is; it does not matter how many definitions you cite and quote because those are not what actually is.  What actually is consists of the observed results of the thing in action, and that is the relevant evidence that Kiero cites to support his argument- and he draws the correct conclusions accordingly.  "What you see is what you get." is a better way to summarize this principle.

Amen brother

Quote from: jibbajibba;673959What the blurb say about hit points in AD&D does not match how Hit points actually work in AD&D that is the point.
If I hit you with a poison dagger you need to save v posion, if its a posion where you take damage regardless of the save then you take damage as the wound is a physical wound the whole of the HP paradigm works that way in AD&D.

So, again, someone who decided to not read the thread he's replying to.

Talysman responded to this point, with text from 1e.  It's not even some interpretation - Gygax speaks directly to this point, and says you're wrong.  It's almost like he's responding to your actual post...as if Gygax saw into the future, saw your post, and said no jibbajibba that's really not what these rules mean.  

I don't get it - is this some contest to just see how much people can talk without listening? Come on guys, what's the point of a message board if you don't read other people's messages?

Go back and read his post where he quotes the 1E DMG.  If you need help finding it, it's on the first page, and you can search for the words "damage is not actually sustained" or "expenditure of favor from deities, luck, skill".  Either will get you there.

Any way you look at it though, what Justin said is flat out wrong.  Him saying that the rules said it was physical wounds is wrong.  Him saying the rules described it in pre-4e versions of the game in a way entirely different from how they were described in 4e is wrong.  The rules were quoted, and they say they opposite...the 1e description of what hit points represent is rather similar to the 4e description of what hit points represent. Both 1e and 4e describe hit points in terms of luck, skill, and other non-wound, non-endurance terms, using almost the same examples to describe hit points.

Quote from: Mistwell;673972I don't get it - is this some contest to just see how much people can talk without listening? Come on guys, what's the point of a message board if you don't read other people's messages?

I long ago decided that internet forums are a write-only medium.

Quote from: Mistwell;673972Any way you look at it though, what Justin said is flat out wrong.  Him saying that the rules said it was physical wounds is wrong.  Him saying the rules described it in pre-4e versions of the game in a way entirely different from how they were described in 4e is wrong.  The rules were quoted, and they say they opposite...the 1e description of what hit points represent is rather similar to the 4e description of what hit points represent. Both 1e and 4e describe hit points in terms of luck, skill, and other non-wound, non-endurance terms, using almost the same examples to describe hit points.

He's wrong in some particulars, but unless I'm misinterpreting him, his main point is that they are an abstraction, which can be interpreted and house-ruled to match individual tastes. If so, I agree with that.

Excellent, now that's settled. And Kiero is still only allowed to have 1d6 hit points for his character. It's okay that he hasn't read the rules, players aren't meant to read the DMG anyway.

Quote from: talysman;673974I long ago decided that internet forums are a write-only medium.



He's wrong in some particulars, but unless I'm misinterpreting him, his main point is that they are an abstraction, which can be interpreted and house-ruled to match individual tastes. If so, I agree with that.

The quote I am disputing of his is this:

Quote from: Justin Alexander;673454But 4E really does present a completely different paradigm from previous editions. And it's not a "small exception". A lost hit point in previous editions always represents a physical wound (although the severity of a 1 hp wound varies depending on the character who suffered it). A lost hit point in 4E might represent a physical wound, but it could also represent fatigue or flagging morale or a number of other things.

Pretty clear to me he thinks a lost hit point in all other editions, like 1e, cannot be things like flagging morale or anything other than a physical wound...even though Gygax spelled it out (repeatedly and at some length) as including things just like that.  

For example, "...a significant portion of hit points at higher levels, stands for skill, luck, and/or magical factors'; and "...skill in combat ...a "sixth sense" which warns the individual of some otherwise unforeseen events, sheer luck, and the fantastic provisions of magical protections and/or divine protection"; and "The so called damage is the expenditure of favor from deities, luck, skill...".

That's the sort of explanation for hit points you find in 4e as well.  1e and 4e, for this issue, are quite similar.  Which is contrary to Justin's claims.

Quote from: Mistwell;673955Hit Points in 1e absolutely did not represent a physical wound most of the time, and Gygax didn't hedge that explanation or leave any wiggle room to think otherwise.

You're simply wrong about this.

AD&D DMG, pg. 82: "Beyond the basic physical damage sustained, hits scored upon a character do not actually do such an amount of physical damage."

Each hit specifically contains a portion which is "basic physical damage sustained", while any damage beyond that is not actually physical damage. This is literally synonymous with what I wrote in Explaining Hit Points.

Still don't believe me?

AD&D DMG, pg. 82: "Each hit scored upon the character does only a small amount of actual physical harm..."

But it always does physical harm. I describe that as a percentage of each hit point suffered in a wound; Gygax describes it as a percentage of the total hit points inflicted in each wound. If the wound is 1 hp these are literally identical statements and in all other cases they're conceptually and mathematically equivalent. In either case, it still results in the same thesis statement:


Gygax said so. Zeb Cook said so. Tweet, Cook, and Williams said so. 'Nuff said.

EDIT: And while I can see why the quote about poison saving throws can be confusing, I suggest you take a second look at it. A physical wound (in this case a scratch) is being inflicted and the saving throw is being made to see "if that mere scratch managed to be venomous". And simply citing the phrase "not actually sustained" while ignoring the rest of that sentence which specifically clarifies what that phrase means ("in proportion to the number of hit points marked off") is an absurd misreading of what Gygax actually wrote, particularly in light of the explicit statements on the subject.

Quote from: Mistwell;673955Wow. So, in this thread we find that Justin has not read, or does not remember, 1e D&D rules regarding hit points.  Nor has he read the thread he's posting to, where people went to quite some lengths to post the relevant and quite lengthy text which completely and totally refutes what Justin thinks the rules were.

No, all we've seen is people quoting Gygax's post-hoc rationalisations of game design decisions he didn't make.

Dave Arneson invented hit points. The history is well understood.

QuoteGameSpy: So you started playing Chainmail using the fantasy rules. How did you have to change the rules around?

    Arneson: We had to change it almost after the first weekend. Combat in Chainmail is simply rolling two six-sided dice, and you either defeated the monster and killed it ... or it killed you. It didn't take too long for players to get attached to their characters, and they wanted something detailed which Chainmail didn't have. The initial Chainmail rules was a matrix. That was okay for a few different kinds of units, but by the second weekend we already had 20 or 30 different monsters, and the matrix was starting to fill up the loft.


    I adopted the rules I'd done earlier for a Civil War game called Ironclads that had hit points and armor class. It meant that players had a chance to live longer and do more. They didn't care that they had hit points to keep track of because they were just keeping track of little detailed records for their character and not trying to do it for an entire army. They didn't care if they could kill a monster in one blow, but they didn't want the monster to kill them in one blow.

http://pc.gamespy.com/articles/540/540395p3.html‎

From the basic idea, Arneson introduced all kinds of variants on the Hit Point idea, such as the idea that hit points increase for each new level. At one point, he wrote adventures in which hit points get multiplied based on a creature's morale as well as level -- so particularly fanatic orcs might have 2x the usual number of hit points, because they'll keep on fighting despite being wounded.

So the short answer is, hit points reflect the ability of civil war ironclads to absorb damage, and armour class, equally, represents star trek style shields, which was bolted on to Chainmail and then D&D with no real thought as to what either of these two concepts actually represented for characters. Various variations on the hit point idea were tried, such as morale multipliers and hit-die-per-level boosts. Arneson subsequently adopted the idea that hit points represent "dodging mojo", but without making this consistent with other parts of the rules that assume they represent purely physical damage. Gygax is not responsible for designing any of this, as far as anyone can determine, so his opinions are of little value to the discussion.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;673983You're simply wrong about this.

AD&D DMG, pg. 82: "Beyond the basic physical damage sustained, hits scored upon a character do not actually do such an amount of physical damage."

I've long since given away my 1st ed. stuff, but I think the money quote says something like "each wound represents some kind of glancing blow, scratch, or bruise".

I've always imagined a knight  slowly being battered down with blow after blow, dinging and denting his armour, until he's he's finally knocked into submission. I'm pretty sure that, when they bothered to create a concrete image, this is what Arneson, Gygax etc. imagined as well.

Quote from: talysman;673895Uh, no. It's not just the definitions, it's the rules that he discounts because they fail to prove his point. There's plenty of examples of hit points that can't possibly be physical damage. He's just cherry-picking examples and ignoring or redefining anything that doesn't fit his theory.

Not even the author's own rationalisations become "rules" just because they said it.

Once again, look at how the thing functions, not the bollocks spewed about how we're supposed to fool ourselves as to what's "really" happening.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;673975Excellent, now that's settled. And Kiero is still only allowed to have 1d6 hit points for his character. It's okay that he hasn't read the rules, players aren't meant to read the DMG anyway.

What the fuck are you on?

In any case, I don't play that mother may I bullshit, which is why I'd have no interest sitting at your table, thanks.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;673906Fair enough. But you aren't going to get anywhere discussing what hit points represent if you roll 4E and previous editions into one big lump. Like a lot of 4E mechanics, they use the same name but they do something significantly different.

It would be like trying to discuss what a "save" means while lumping 4E and pre-4E together.



That's a bottomless pit, though.

You start by saying: "Well, the system is abstract and doesn't model the debilitating effects from wounds, so it's unacceptable / unrealistic / dissociated."

So you add some wound penalties. Say, -1 penalty for every 1/4 of your total hit points are depleted.

And then you say: "Well, jeez, this system is so abstract it's not even modeling the fact that wounds are suffered to different parts of the body. A cut on the arm shouldn't affect my ability to run! So it's clearly unacceptable / unrealistic / dissociated."

So you add hit locations.

And then you say: "Well, jeez, this system is so abstract it's not even modeling the potential for wounds to deteriorate or for extreme actions to make the wounds worse, so it's unacceptable / unrealistic / dissociated."

So you add rules for that.

And then you say: "Well, jeez, this system is so abstract it's not modeling the distinctions between different types of wounds. Cuts should be different from bruises and both of those should be different from broken bones, so this is clearly unacceptable / unrealistic / dissociated."

The real root of the problem here is not the mechanic. It's that you've failed to understand the concept of abstraction.

I don't disagree with any of this nor do I frantically obsess over the fact that at 1hp you're good to go and at 0hp you are dead. As a D&D player it is something that I accept about D&D and it is preferable to a convoluted attempt to simulate the reality of wounds with rules and processes.

I haven't failed to understand the concept of abstraction. We are invited to accept a belief that your HP represent more than the physical damage you can take whereas in reality this is not so. The reality of the game just doesn't play that way which is why I can't accept that belief in the same way that I can't accept that the Earth was created in 6 days because the author said so. It doesn't impact upon my enjoyment of the game, though.

The next time one of my players excitedly announces a hit for 10 hit points of damage, I shall piss on his bonfire by telling him that he only actually caused one point of physical harm and the other nine were lost 'cause his enemy is feeling a bit peaky this combat round. Then I'll turn every killing blow into death by exhaustion.

Quote from: Kiero;674003What the fuck are you on?

D&D. That is to say, the game which you are discussing. You should try it sometime, rather than just speaking authoritatively about it.

QuoteI'd have no interest sitting at your table, thanks.

Had someone invited you? You probably wouldn't even bring snacks.

Quote from: Mistwell;673972So, again, someone who decided to not read the thread he's replying to.

Talysman responded to this point, with text from 1e.  It's not even some interpretation - Gygax speaks directly to this point, and says you're wrong.  It's almost like he's responding to your actual post...as if Gygax saw into the future, saw your post, and said no jibbajibba that's really not what these rules mean.  

I don't get it - is this some contest to just see how much people can talk without listening? Come on guys, what's the point of a message board if you don't read other people's messages?

Go back and read his post where he quotes the 1E DMG.  If you need help finding it, it's on the first page, and you can search for the words "damage is not actually sustained" or "expenditure of favor from deities, luck, skill".  Either will get you there.

Mate you misunderstand my point. I don't give a shit what Gygax says Hit points might be described as being liek fairy moon dust. The point is that in paly they only recover through healing.
What's more is that the 4e hit point paradigm of regain HP through a short rest, or through a Warlord shouting at you are uniformly hated by the very same people that are saying HPs are fatigue, and skill and energy and not just physical damage....

Quote from: Orpheo;674009I don't disagree with any of this nor do I frantically obsess over the fact that at 1hp you're good to go and at 0hp you are dead. As a D&D player it is something that I accept about D&D and it is preferable to a convoluted attempt to simulate the reality of wounds with rules and processes.

I haven't failed to understand the concept of abstraction. We are invited to accept a belief that your HP represent more than the physical damage you can take whereas in reality this is not so. The reality of the game just doesn't play that way which is why I can't accept that belief in the same way that I can't accept that the Earth was created in 6 days because the author said so. It doesn't impact upon my enjoyment of the game, though.

The next time one of my players excitedly announces a hit for 10 hit points of damage, I shall piss on his bonfire by telling him that he only actually caused one point of physical harm and the other nine were lost 'cause his enemy is feeling a bit peaky this combat round. Then I'll turn every killing blow into death by exhaustion.

Fighting at full strength at 1hp actually has two huge advantages.

Sure, it's not 'realistic' but....


Most players feel excitement, sense of danger, fear, etc... when they are one hit away from death. Thats a good thing.

And, tracking wound penalties is record keeping, and penalties for being wounded often just guarantee you die.


So I don't mind the 'full power at 1hp' thing.


Not saying it is realistic, but it works.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;673983You're simply wrong about this.

AD&D DMG, pg. 82: "Beyond the basic physical damage sustained, hits scored upon a character do not actually do such an amount of physical damage."

Each hit specifically contains a portion which is "basic physical damage sustained", while any damage beyond that is not actually physical damage. This is literally synonymous with what I wrote in Explaining Hit Points.

Still don't believe me?

AD&D DMG, pg. 82: "Each hit scored upon the character does only a small amount of actual physical harm..."

But it always does physical harm. I describe that as a percentage of each hit point suffered in a wound; Gygax describes it as a percentage of the total hit points inflicted in each wound. If the wound is 1 hp these are literally identical statements and in all other cases they're conceptually and mathematically equivalent. In either case, it still results in the same thesis statement:

Any time you suffer hit point damage in pre-4E D&D, you have suffered physical harm.

Gygax said so. Zeb Cook said so. Tweet, Cook, and Williams said so. 'Nuff said.

EDIT: And while I can see why the quote about poison saving throws can be confusing, I suggest you take a second look at it. A physical wound (in this case a scratch) is being inflicted and the saving throw is being made to see "if that mere scratch managed to be venomous". And simply citing the phrase "not actually sustained" while ignoring the rest of that sentence which specifically clarifies what that phrase means ("in proportion to the number of hit points marked off") is an absurd misreading of what Gygax actually wrote, particularly in light of the explicit statements on the subject.

I hate to break this to you, but not every instance of losing hit points is the result of taking a hit, which is a key requirement in all of your examples.  Heck, even in your edit, you do realize that there are ways to get poisoned other than a needle, right?

Quote from: jibbajibba;674018Mate you misunderstand my point. I don't give a shit what Gygax says Hit points might be described as being liek fairy moon dust. The point is that in paly they only recover through healing.
.

Did either of you fellas bother to read my post a couple pages back?  You know, the one with examples of how hit point loss and recovery are done without any sort of physical wound?

Life Drain: no physical wound
Transfer Life: no physical healing or wound; it's simply life energy
Aid/Tenser's Transformation, etc spell: temp max hit points, which you gain even if you are at full hit points from the start.  Do you expect me to believe you get "extra" healed?
Natural rest: after X amount of time, everyone is brought to max, regardless what that is
Level Drain: the hit points lost due to level drain are those that were acquired by the other part of what hit points are: experience and luck.  You don't always suffer a wound on level drain hit point loss, nor are you healed of a wound on a restoration spell

Those are just examples off the top of my head.  So yeah, while the vast majority of hit point loss and gain is tied to physical wounds and therefore that's what people think of it as, it's not always the case, so please stop saying it is.  You are objectively wrong on this.

Quote from: jibbajibba;674018Mate you misunderstand my point. I don't give a shit what Gygax says Hit points might be described as being liek fairy moon dust. The point is that in paly they only recover through healing.

And alcohol. Don't forget alcohol.