The Gaping Wound, Part 3

Posted: 6 September 2012 in Game Structure
Tags: , ,
Baseline

When my last post ended, we had established that there was a baseline in D&D that 14 to 20 points of damage is enough to kill a man, with 4 to 8 generally being enough to ‘drop’ him and cause him to start dying.  This is based off of die type and Constitution score and (importantly) assumes a Level 1 character.  That most people are Level 1 is one of my guiding principles, and I believe it will serve us well here.

Let’s take our notional baseline and put a finer point on it: the statistically average Level 1 Commoner (human, for what it’s worth).  His hit die type is a d6 and he has a 10 CON, so his (statistically average) hit points are 3 (rounding down) — he will begin dying after just a few points of damage and will be dead after a maximum of 13 damage.  A Warrior will, on average, have 5 hp and die after a total of 15 damage, making them a bit more resilient but still in the same ball park.  PC classes are comparable.  Extra points in CON effectively add 1.5 points to the total damage a character can take before death, so a tough Warrior might be able to survive up to 18 points of damage, but he’s still down after 6.

So far we can make sense of this.  Hit points represent the body’s ability to sustain damage.  After so much punishment, you will begin dying and, eventually, you body will beyond the point where it can recover; you are dead.  If you’ve been hurt and survived, rest and medical attention can, over time, return you to health.  Hit Points only measure the proximity to death; they do not track scars, broken bones, pulled tendons, torn muscles, etc. except in as far as those things bring a character closer to death.  Hit Points on their own can not tell you if you lose a limb, or an eye, or threw out your back.  Hit Points (on their own) can’t track bruises, fatigue, hunger, or exposure to the elements.  they just tell you how close you are to dying in a coarse-grained kind of way.  But for that, they do a pretty good job: some people are tougher than others, but everyone is effectively within a few points of each other (with the exception of extreme Constitution), and everyone heals at the same rate.

The real problem comes from scaling hit points with level and, perhaps to a greater extent, random hit points.

Scaling Hit Points

The way D&D does hit points is that you get X hit dice of type Y, where X is the level of your character.  So a Level 1 Commoner (on average) has 3hp, but once he hits level 2 he jumps up to 7 hp!  It’s worth noting here, though, that this isn’t really twice the vitality; he has 7hp, but he’s still dead at -10, so instead of dying after 13 damage he’s dead after 17.  It’s not a huge leap in those terms, but it does mean that he can take a lot more punishment before he ‘drops.’  What’s more, the average Level 2 Commoner can take more punishment than the average Level 1 Warrior, both before he drops and before he’s dead.  That is to say Level matters, which I think is appropriate.  The difference between Level 1 and Level 2 in many respects is more important than the difference between Warrior and Commoner; the Level 2 character is better than the Level 1 character fundamentally (though a Level 2 Commoner who says that to a Level 1 Warrior is unlikely to ever see Level 3).

Does this mean that the Level 2 character has more meat to them?  That their bones are stronger, that they’re more resistant to decapitation?  The answer is no: hit points don’t track those sorts of things, and if they’re important hit points are the wrong tool to use.  All it means is that the Level 2 character can keep fighting despite more severe punishment and that he can recover from graver wounds.  After 13 damage the Level 1 Commoner’s body can’t keep up and shuffles off this mortal coil; the Level 2 Commoner has taken the same punishment but is still holding on, and may yet recover.  The Level 2 character is more resilient.

At Level 3 the Commoner would have 10 hp and survive up to 20 damage before dying, and it starts to become clear that such a character can keep fighting despite having taken wounds that would drop a lesser man.  In fact, when the Level 3 Commoner has taken enough damage to drop, the Level 1 Commoner is on death’s door and fading fast.  The Level 3 character is truly heroic, though still within ‘normal’ bounds.  By the time he reach Level 5, though, he has 17 hit points and can sustain 27 points of damage before his last gasp; he fights on after receiving a wound that would kill other men outright.  He is on the verge of the superhuman.

Random Hit Points

But what if he’s not? This assumes that a character could increase in level without significantly increasing their resilience, but I don’t think that’s much of an assumption at all.  First, it’s easy to imagine a Wizard who becomes a better Wizard without becoming noticeably tougher.  Second, it’s already coded into the way we do hit points: statistically unlikely though it may be, that Level 5 Commoner could have only 7 hp (if he rolled ones for every Level after the first). And in terms of the purpose of the Hit Point system I think this flaw may be the worst because it does damage to the purpose of hit points: it divorces them from the character they’re meant to represent.

I think I get why we do it.  Dice are a thing that gamers love, they’re fair, and they help us determine otherwise uncertain things.  But my contention is that hit points are, in one sense, not uncertain.  The character either is or is not getting more resilient, and either by a lot or a little.  In a way, it’s as important as whether he’s a Wizard or a Warrior, a Gnome or a Half-Orc, Lawful or Chaotic.  It talks about his ability to act beyond his old limits; it is deliberate.  Determining this randomly causes problems because now anyone can suddenly be twice as resilient without a firm connection to the fiction; it’s random.

There’s not really a good ‘fix’ for this, and in many cases I’m not sure a fix is desired, but I think it’s important to recognize. If you don’t acknowledge that your character’s hit point increase is tied to the fiction then the mechanic is going to become divorced from the character’s reality.

Part 2
Part 4

Advertisements
Comments
  1. Brendan says:

    It is perhaps worth emphasizing that you are working here within the 3E paradigm. There is actually a huge amount of variation between how different editions handle this, but your post only references the monolithic “D&D”.

    Some examples:

    http://untimately.blogspot.com/2012/02/varieties-of-fatal-experience.html

    Hit points represent the body’s ability to sustain damage.

    So you have come to fully reject the abstractness of HP?

    • Jack says:

      It’s true that I’m generally working from a 3.X position, and I don’t have any first-hand experience with other Editions (aside from 4e, which is an exception) but the looking around that I’ve done done actually doesn’t show much variation at all (after adding the dead-at-minus-ten rule, which was apparently in play if not official early on). I’d be curious if you have examples of greater variation.

    • Jack says:

      And yes, the purpose of this series is to reject the abstraction of hit points. I contend that it is unnecessary, confusing, and inconsistently applied throughout all editions of D&D.

      • Brendan says:

        It’s interesting, I have come to exactly the opposite conclusion, to the extent that one of the optional HP rules in the game I am working on right now is to re-roll HP at the beginning of each combat, with HP damage not being persistent between combats! (That’s on “easy” mode; default mode is to re-roll HP per session.)

        I don’t think the “levels and HP” design of D&D will survive contact with an attempt to have it model only actual physical wounding. Assuming average constitution (and 3E numbers), the difference in HP between an average commoner (3.5 HP) and an average 10th level fighter (55 HP) is just too high. Even if you assume 10th level is modelling a superhero, the expected value of 5d10 is 27.5.

        • Jack says:

          The most damning bit against the HP abstraction has always been Cure spells and natural healing. If HP represents luck or divine intervention, how do time or a magic potion have any effect on them? Treating HP as a more-faithful gauge of physical wellness removes this problem.

          I think that the levels and HP design works out fine once you recognize that characters above Level 4 or so are more than mere mortals. There’s not really any such thing as an “average” Level 10 Fighter; by virtue of being Level 10 you’re already talking about someone who is extraordinary. At Level 3 and 4 you’re talking about action heroes who can be shot repeatedly and still stay on their feet. At levels 8 and 10 you’re talking about someone who can take out-and-out lethal wounds and still fight on (at 28 HP you’re talking about 3 mortal wounds to kill them). I see no problem with this, because I’m not expecting a Level 10 Fighter to be “just a good fighter.” He is nearly a god among men.

          • Brendan says:

            Don’t you think, though, that imagining the transition of the same person from 1st level to 10th level requires the same level of abstraction and suspension of disbelief as does any consideration of abstract HP?

            Additionally, “cure” spells and time-based natural “healing” can also represent recovering courage and skill in turning mortal blows into flesh wounds (I will concede that the naming is suboptimal, but this is partly why I like the various re-roll hit dice mechanics rather than fixed numbers of HP). You may have already read this, but here’s a link just in case:

            http://untimately.blogspot.com/2012/01/rerolling-hit-dice-healing.html

            I also tend to greatly limit healing in my settings, but that is more for game reasons (I prefer higher danger) than it is because I find any problem with the logic of healing.

            • Jack says:

              Actually, no, I don’t think progressing from Level 1 to Level 10 requires an abstraction; it requires an epic adventure, and simply progressing because you found treasures or killed monsters is… problematic. I think it’s a good way to set pacing, but something Epic should happen when you cross tiers. Within tiers it’s less of an issue — from 1st to 3rd level you’re getting progressively tougher, but it’s at the level of “grit your teeth and bear it.”

              I honestly like your re-roll Hit Dice mechanism, but I think it represents something else (duh, right?), something more akin to morale than health. And that’s fine, but it’s not what I’m looking to model. (I think morale should exist along side HP, as should some kind of a wounding system; but for the sake of simplicity, I think answering “am I dead yet” is the most important.)

              The trouble is, time and healing becomes LESS effective as a character levels up if you figure HP represent luck and skill and so on. A low-level Wizard would have severe injuries from the same amount of damage that gives a highly skilled Fighter a series of bruises and flesh wounds, but it takes the same amount of Magic from the gods to heal them. That doesn’t make sense.

              I limit healing too (I like high lethality as well), but more in the sense of “Clerics are rare, and even amongst them most are Level 1.”

    • Jack says:

      Aaand and just noticed your link, which I have read before. Ignoring 4E (which I note is an exception) and the retro clones (who decided not to clone D&D death, I guess) I don’t really see the variation you’re referring to. I think adding wound tables or extra “you’re dying” fiddly bits can be useful and interesting, but even in those cases the retro clones don’t really stray far from the baseline I’ve presented here.

      • Brendan says:

        Dead at 0 is a pretty big difference, and is the default mode of OD&D and the entire basic D&D line.

        • Jack says:

          That I’ll concede, and did so when I said “after adding the dead-at-minus-ten rule.” That rule, apparently common after AD&D, fixes a lot of issues with a health system that can only count to 4 or 6.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s