The problem I have always had, particularly with high-level play, is that this theatre of the mind tends to break down when it comes to combat with giants, dragons, demons, and so on. What does it look like when your 12th level PC 'hits' a giant with his longsword? A Lilliputian jabbing Gulliver in the toe? What does it look like when your 12th level PC is hit with a glancing blow by a dragon's claws? Twelve-inch long talons that rake the flesh with the faintest of touches? The implied setting is not one in which a PC can suddenly turn into Orloondo Bland's Legolas and start running up an oliphaunt's trunk or skating down a staircase on a shield with a fully-automatic short bow. It basically suggest a fairly realistic assessment about what human beings are physically capable of notwithstanding magic. So how is one supposed to imagine a fight with a very big, or very ungainly, or very oddly-sized or -proportioned enemy?
This is I think one of the primary reasons why D&D campaigns tend to die off after, say, 9th level or so. Not that all do, and not to say that there are no other reasons. But I think it is a significant one: things just get harder to imagine, and become less immediate and immersive as a consequence.
Discuss.
Yes, I've suspected for a while that fights with Huge or larger-size creatures need some kind of mechanical step change. Finding the weak spot, climbing up and gouging, luring it into a trap ... It's realistic that fights against a much larger enemy would involve a large subtraction from the damage dealt by any one physical blow, for example, unless the weak spot is somehow found. To use one pair of terms, the fight turns from incremental to catastrophic in nature, and simply whittling down won't do - or perhaps, a blow that would strike down a normal opponent is what is needed to simply do incremental damage to a colossus.
ReplyDeleteSounds like a job for Roger G-S!
DeleteAbout 1-2% of people don't have a mind's eye, a condition called aphantasia. Many of them, myself included, enjoy D&D and other RPGs. So, a mind's eye isn't needed to enjoy a game, but maybe if you're used to visualizing things, this would be a problem.
DeleteHigh level play is awesome so, whilst you might be right, it's a great shame.
ReplyDeleteThis is a good example of where it becomes important to revisit the core mechanic's logic: the players can do anything that seems reasonably feasible in the fiction. Therefore, the burden is on the players to describe to you a plausible means of performing those attacks. If they can't, then they don't get to make the attack roll to begin with. You're right: trying to get a meaningful stab at the giant from the ground seems silly. So the players are going to have to come up with a more appropriately OSR "combat as war" tactic like luring the giant into a trap.
ReplyDeleteGood idea.
DeleteInterestingly some relevant advice is given in dungeon world. In this game every monster has 10hp. However you need to describe how you get to do significant damages to a creature.
DeleteTwo thoughts about this:
ReplyDelete1. I suspect not everyone imagines the fight step-by-step in their mind's eye (even leaving aside those who think in words rather than images and other alternatives). For myself, I usually only picture the starting conditions, key moments, and ending.
2. High-level fights, unless you're playing a system with HP bloat and forced encounter balance, rarely turn into slog-fests in my experience. The lethality of the spells, abilities, and other powers mean that things end quickly one way or the other (or it turns into a chase sequence when someone runs).
Interesting observation - I've never really noticed that, although maybe it's just because I have spent comparatively little time involved in high-level campaigns.
DeletePreliminary thoughts: I'm not sure/convinced by this argument, because i don't resonate with your initial examples of mind's eye D&D combat . I never had a problem with fairy tales or stories... the imagination is much more capable, much more expensive than the silver screen touchstones that you refer to. D&D, I think, draws upon a deeper, more primal storehouse. Such is the stuff from which dreams are woven.
ReplyDeleteAlthough i would prefer not to make comparative video game analogies, I must point towards something like Dark Souls, which is nothing if not immersive --- and is so without the presence of super heroes. Are you saying that video games like this, have the edge upon the mind's eye?
At any rate, the D&D theatre of *my* mind (could we be more subjective?), draws upon stuff like Dark Souls, like the Berserk manga, like myths and fables. Like dreams.
In Pendragon, for sure, I'm all over the kind of films you initially mention. But for D&D, one would be better served, as high levels beckon, staring into the depths of the campfire (or looking to the heart of a psychedelic experience), rather than seeing inspiration from the rational.
Honestly, I think high level stuff tended to break down because the *rules* seemed to. It turned out, that I WAS DOING IT WRONG.
Also, forgive my hectoring vibe. I know that you're not making a blanket statement, I'm just mind dribbling.
DeleteSure - nobody is saying that this kind of thing is literally impossible to imagine. But I find it jarring in a way that low-level combat with a bunch of, say, orcs, is not.
DeleteI like the idea of D&D visualisation as dream logic/psychedelia as you describe it here and there is a lot to that. But dream logic almost by definition feels ephemeral and lacking in consequence.
That's a fair point, and believe it or not,
Deleteit's something I've run up against in the past (ironically attempting to run a game with the decidedly hand waivey 'Exalted: The Fair Folk'). I'll tell you what I did and what I still do.
Go full phantasmagoric in the descriptions. As a side note, you're the man who filled an entire city with halved people (not an easy image)... so I know you can...;-). Hook the players with the cool stuff. Be wild. Just that one incredible, indelible image...The silhouette of the Colossus. The PCs cloaks whipping in the b hurricane wind, as its mass begins to blot out the sky.
But don't harp. The next thing we're interested in, as you rightly point out, are consequences. Take a leaf out of Sam Peckinpah.... not for dramatic styling, but for *results*.
What I mean, is: focus on the wound and not the wounder. Gore. Pain. Desperation.
Now please play Master Of The Universe by Hawkwind. (Space Ritual is the best version)
Again, no egg sucking tutorial intended with the above.
DeleteAs I've been at work, it's occurred to me, that music and sound is a huge part of how I conceive of fantasy battles, so my last sentence isn't entirely self Indulgent.
I think there are a bunch of sensory connections and memories we do well to connect/plug in pursuit of immersion and immediacy.
I always imagine successful "hits" by a monster against a PC to be exhaustive rather than actually physically injurious.
ReplyDeleteIt helps explain how a high-level fighter can withstand so many more attacks, because he is able to handle himself more efficiently in combat, energy-wise, than a low-level fighter is capable of, rather than being able to actually withstand more wounds (which isn't very realistic). A sword to the gut will take out a real human fighter of any skill level if it actually hits.
In my games, it is only things like critical hits or when the PC's hit points get down to the last 10% or so that actual physical damage occurs and they can succumb potentially.
The first example that pops in my head is the fight with the Moria troll in Peter Jackson's Fellowship of the Ring. The heroes are all racing about the room, dodging blows, and exerting themselves significantly while fighting the creature, but the only actual "hits" the troll scores (iirc) are against Gimli and then the "killing strike" on Frodo.
The monster, on the other hand, takes quite a bit of actual physical damage.
Yeah, it's right there in the DMG, p82 (amongst other places). All those lost HP are close scrapes.
DeleteTen years ago (!) I wrote this: https://monstersandmanuals.blogspot.com/2013/08/d-combat-is-more-abstract-than-you-think.html
DeleteSo I am sympathetic to this point, but only up too a point. I get the argument but it is counterintuitive and again, a bit hard to imagine.
I find it fairly intuitive, possibly as a result of doing a lot of high-impact sports in my youth. I can so readily picture HP loss as the cumulative build up of micro-injuries and wear and tear that I have to admit I'm not entirely clear what someone would find counterintuitive about it, once it's presented in that light - to me the bit that's being omitted is the chance of getting stuck in the guts and killed anyway while still at high HP, which I'm quite happy to write off as heroic skill or dramatic convenience.
DeleteI understand that argument. But high-impact sports aren't combat. Being bitten by a dragon isn't like being rugby tackled. And in a rugby match there isn't a certain point at which one more tackle happens to kill you. ;)
DeleteIn rebuttal to the counterintuitive point, John is precisely right...high-impact sports are about as close to being in combat as you can possibly get without actually being in combat. I mean, athletes *do* die or become crippled all the time.
DeleteBoxing is the pinnacle of that example: The fighters are mostly protected against actual physical damage by the equipment and rules of engagement, but what undoes most boxers is when they become so tired ("gassed") that their opponent finds an opening and delivers the "killing blow."
To me, this model precisely mirrors what would happen when a dragon scores a "hit" with its bite attack. Its jaws do not actually clamp down on the character (which would kill anyone outright); instead, they snap so close that the character is forced to interrupt his "combat flow" and exert himself to barely dodge out of the way, adding to his overall exhaustion.
All due respect, but me and my players have zero trouble imagining this as how combat goes down.
noisms: Ah, sorry, it was an implicit question not an argument, I wasn't being rhetorical. I genuinely would like to know better why you find it, in your words, counterintuitive and a bit hard to imagine. I'm thinking of my present and future players.
DeleteGladwain: I'm not sure we're precisely in agreement. I'm suggesting that someone would find the idea of HP loss viewed in the above sense intuitive regardless of their personal experience with actual or simulated combat, or non-combat sports. If I have to argue it to them we're already off purpose in a sense.
DeleteAnonymous: the counterintuitive thing is not really the idea of abstract combat in itself (which makes perfect sense as it has been presented here and which, as I mentioned, I have written a lot about previously) but the way it shakes down in the specific context of a big/unusually shaped opponent, when the PC has a large number of hit points. Imagining it as more of a anime/superheroic style battle is fine, but that doesn't really sit right when set alongside the implied setting of D&D, which is that a human being remains a human being no matter how high a level they are except insofar as they get better at magic or whatever. Whether you are 20th level or 1st level, if you STR is 14 then it's 14 and if your DEX is 12, it's 12. You specifically do not get more superheroic or able to performance miraculous feats like vaulting 12' in the air to slice at a giant's face (or whatever).
DeleteThe other thing is that, like it or not, having the 'to hit' roll mean 'actually a miss but one which tires the target out a bit more in having to dodge it' does feel counterintuitive - surely you recognise this?
John: I feel like we're in agreement. I certainly agree with everything you wrote in your reply, so forgive me if I've mischaracterized something.
Delete"Microinjuries" is a good way to put it, which is why most high-impact athletes don't play consecutive games, but require (sometimes considerable) time to heal up and recover before they can perform again, just like adventurers do. As noisms says above, a player does not become more super-heroic by virtue of being higher level. To continue that point, they become better able to mitigate the punishing effects of combat.
A sword to the gut is a sword to the gut no matter how "high-level" one is...even the term indicates that the character is operating at a higher level of expertise. Taking Nick's cue, I looked up the section in the DMG and Gygax considers the idea that a high-level character can take more sword blows to be "preposterous." He goes on to say, quite explicitly:
"Consider a character who is a 10th level fighter with an 18 constitution. This character would have an average of 5.5 hit points per die, plus a constitution bonus of 4 hit points, per level, or 95 hit points! Each hit scored upon the character does only a small amount of actual physical harm – the sword thrust that would have run a 1st level fighter through the heart
merely grazes the character due to the fighter's exceptional skill, luck, and sixth sense ability which caused movement to avoid the attack at just the right moment. However, having sustained 40 or 50 hit points of damage, our lordly fighter will be covered with a number of nicks, scratches, cuts and bruises. It will require a long period of rest and recuperation to regain the physical and metaphysical peak of 95 hit points."
Fiction is replete with such things, so I'm having difficulty understanding what is counterintuitive about using this imaginative concept, regardless of the size or mass of the combatants.
Forgive me, but it feels like there is a certain level of obtuseness at work here. We're not talking about 'swords to the gut' or situations in which it is realistic to expect 'microinjuries', as you put it, and I have already specfically said that I understand perfectly well the argument for abstract hit points and abstract combat.
DeleteThe problem is that what you are describing is based on a somewhat realistic assessment of what combat looks like, and this is at odds with the very fantastical assumptions that would have to underpin combat with e.g. a giant or a dragon.
Pardon my obtuseness, but the question you posed originally (in the post's title) doesn't make mention of a specific opponent. You only brought that clarifier up in what I took to be an aside within the post itself.
DeleteI felt like I gave you a great example of such a fight you have difficulty visualizing by referencing the (fairly-"realistic") cave troll battle in the Fellowship of the Ring movie. If you haven't seen the film, then pardon me twice. Here is a link to it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAxC0pbsj40
Anyway, enjoyed the discussion but I may be missing your point, and I don't want to repeat myself too many times. Cheers!
It's in the bit where I said "The problem I have always had, particularly with high-level play, is that this theatre of the mind tends to break down when it comes to combat with giants, dragons, demons, and so on."
DeleteThe issue is not a problem with visualising combat with a big opponent - again, that's made clear in the original post. The problem is visualising combat with a big opponent based on the way D&D combat works.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSorry for the accidental double-post.
DeleteMost people probably don't visualize that clearly (the research is patchy but that's the gist of it, I gather), but of those who do, I suppose many imagine it like a D&D-based video game fight: taking turns performing an attack animation where your sword sweeps intangibly through the enemy, monotonously, until somebody's bar runs down and they perform a death animation, falling down.
ReplyDeleteHa! Yes, very possibly.
DeleteMy friend and I have been playing one-on-one in Greyhawk since 2000; I imagine we were one of the few who looked forward to the Epic Level Handbook to solve actual needs at the table. In my experience, the problem is that you run out of the real world equivalents that enable intuitive play. ACKS is proof of concept for a consistent economy that covers the journey from owning a sword to leading a band of mounted knights to commanding an army of elephants. But ACKS caps at level 14, and D&D implicitly promises that you will ride dragons who eat battalions of elephants on your way to capture the spaceship you will wreck at Barrier Peaks when you usurp Zeus's throne. The problem is that at low level you don't really need ACKS' economic infrastructure because if you want to create a resource limitation for horsemen, or if your players want to ride rhinoceroses, everyone has real-world knowledge that you can use to derive plausible solutions on the fly. Neither the real world nor the classic D&D sources offer similarly detailed guidance on dragons and UFOs, so high-level play requires a lot more work to tame the far-out stuff into a relational economy and make that knowledge usable to players.
ReplyDeleteGood observations.
DeleteI think this is one of those things that could really do with greater systematisation. Usually when I say something like this someboody immediately pops up to say Kevin Crawford has written something on it...
DeleteIt's so funny, I find it relatively easy to picture because my references are a tad different.
ReplyDeleteOne reason I never fully grokked the Fantasy genre as portrayed by D&D was the lack of visual references when I started in the hobby. Other games/genres were much easier. What do Superhero games look like? Silver and Bronze Age Superhero comics. What does FASA Star Trek look like? The Original Star Trek TV show.
Unfortunately, ithe late 70s and very early 80s what Fantasy movies were there? What TV shows? Cartoons? Was there a Star Wars, Space:1999, or heck even Superfriends for Fantasy? I don't recall seeing any.
Eventually I discovered Anime and with that really cool looking Fantasy. Sadly, D&D never seemed as kinetic, exciting, and big as Anime Fantasy seemed to be. High level D&D? Ok, there I have visuals: Anime characters fighting Dragons ans massive Demons. The Fantastic Four vs Galactus. Nowadays we've got video/computer games like Monster Hunter and Shadow of the Colossus.
With the release of Goblin Slayer on Crunchyroll and Delicious in Dungeon today on Netflix, I may just be inclined to give Fantasy another shot.
Just for fun, lets try to find a purely visual example... This comes to mind: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJRaLnLDMWg . Sure, its not quite exactly there, but at least its a good start - it suggests the idea of a tricky, "positional", uneven thing. Lots of ruses, ripostes, near misses, until a side gets a glimpse of a exploitable opening and goes for it. And were you to forget about the rest of the movie and consider just this snippet by itself, who would you name the victor? Did the dragon roast the slayer at the end or not? Will that magic lance (complete with the searing magics rending the scales apart at each strike, something that no blade made by a mortal could do) to the neck enough to wound the monster to a slow, exsanguinating heath? Maybe its difficult to "watch" such a strange mismatched combat as a "third person" and actually know what the hell is happening. Maybe there should be a moment to gather your toughts at the end and try to "diggest" what just happenend, as your PC's raise from floor, checks to see if they are themselves mortally wounded ("is my gut punctured?", "can I move my arms?","is that blood mine?") and proceed to poke the corpse of the monster with a stick, unbelieving that they actually killed the damn thing. Thats what I like about this particular snippet: above all, it succeds in communicating that it takes a lot of effort, and that the monster is something as wondrous as it is terrifying.
ReplyDeleteNice thoughts, and makes me think about good, poetic depictions of fictional combat.
DeleteGiants aren't so big in AD&D that a human can only hit the toe. A man with a sword can reach the guts of even a 21' storm giant. And the "hit" by the dragon might not penetrate the warrior's armor (though there'll be a big bruise under the armor) or perhaps the fighter pulled a muscle avoiding disembowelment by the claws and is now slower, or favoring his left side, or what have you. Abstract combat works just as well at high level as at low level, IMO.
ReplyDeleteOK, replace with a gargantua.
DeleteCharacters IMC have encountered a gargantua once (they fled), and seen one that could not reach them once, so it hasn't really been a factor. But high level characters actually fighting something like that would probably be flying (just to avoid being stepped on). If not they are stabbing ankles and feet until blood loss tells, I suppose.
DeleteI dunno. I am a big fan of shonen action manga, where the characters usually have more or less normal human forms but can perform absolutely ridiculous abilities: surviving being crushed and stabbed, jumping dozens of feet in the air, their sword slashes sending vibrating shockwaves that cut 20 foot holes in giant enemies… I know this wasn’t at all on the mind of Gygax and Arneson but these visuals fit high level D&D to me perfectly. - Jason Bradley Thompson
ReplyDeleteUnlike PCs, monsters are bags of hit points. Every attack that reduces those hit points is a blow, a wound, a mark. When the fire giant finally falls, he's been cut down by numerous wounds and scrapes and blood lettings to the point when he can no longer stand, collapsing as his legs can no longer hold his sheer bulk upright, bleeding his life force out in great, steaming pools.
ReplyDeleteHit points do not represent the same thing for PCs; instead, they are a resource pool, a combination of skill, luck, fatigue, and divine favor. As they inch closer and closer to death...as that resource pool depletes...they become disheveled, tousled, bruised and bloodied. Their breathing grows ragged, their limbs start to stiffen, the hope starts to leave their eyes. A pall comes over their demeanor as the end approaches...they can sense death lurking just around the corner for them.
This is what combat represents at EVERY level of play. It takes a long-ass time to cut down a 10 or 15 hit die creature, even when your magic weapons are scoring wounds on the things flesh. Meanwhile, PCs of high level have more energy, vigor, and "pluck" than lower-leveled heroes...until they don't.
Immersive game play becomes a non-issue when players are engaged with the action at the table.
Sure. I understand the theory of abstract hit points. But then the dice hits the table and it's 'the dragon bites you', not 'the dragon does something which causes you to become disheveled and makes your limbs slightly more stiff and the hope leave your eyes slightly'. ;)
DeleteI suppose. I just say 'you take 18 points of damage; what are you down to?' I don't worry about narrating imaginary color/fluff in battles anymore...until the final blow hits. Then they get some good narration to explain how the particular attack downed the character.
DeleteIn practice, I do that too - but are you seriously telling me you don't at all visualise what is going during combat?
DeleteStrange to say but...generally...no. When I'm running combat for AD&D, the only thing I'm really trying to "visualize" (and help my players visualize) is the layout of the combat zone and the maneuvering of the various combatants. Quite often that's enough! The (NPC) opponents are acting to the best of their ability, and the PCs are trying every desperate measure they can to defeat their foes AND stay alive. Actual attacks (what an attack "looks like") really doesn't matter: if the damage roll is good, I say "you struck a vicious blow!" Sometimes. A lot of times there's no need as the players KNOW they just did 12 or 15 points of damage and they're already excited and crowing.
DeleteTHEN if I tell them that it doesn't seem to phase the critter (because it has a lot of HPs), their hearts start to race faster and they need to make choices of whether or not the combat is a good idea.
D&D is a game, so it's the numbers (and the interaction of those numbers with the game mechanics) that are the important bit. But it's colored by the FRAMING, more than the narrative description of the action. That may sound weird, but I'm just telling you how it falls out in practice (in my experience). Even if I want to tart it up "oh, you feint and them gash him across the thigh...he's limping a bit now," (or whatever)...all the players are going to do are reach for the initiative dice again. They are invested in the ADVENTURE...that is, the scenario being played out...and one combat is just one part of the adventure. The individual rounds and attacks? They're just procedural. No need to get mired in the blow-by-blow details.
"But then combat is just a boring 'roll-roll' dice-fest!" I hear the protests. If that's the case, you're (perhaps) doing combat WRONG. Combat should be fast and dangerous and that means properly scaled for your players. It shouldn't be a slog. It should be something that keeps the players on-the-edge-og-their-seats. That way lies engagement...which is the goal and objective of EVERY Dungeon Master.
Well, at least, it *should* be.
; )
I don't describe the individual blows either but I still imagine the scenes playing out in my mind. I feel like combat would be pretty boring without that.
DeleteReplying to a point you mage above (and not wanting to cramp the discussion there), I don't think that the implied setting of D&D is 'humans remain humans, beginning to end'. I think you're describing the implied setting of the OSR as Matt Finch outlined it in his primer. You're right: attributes don't go up (organically), but raw 'mythicness' DOES. I think you might be forgetting magical items and spells, which both grant numerous special abilities. PCs at level 14 don't wail on the Thessalhydra with longswords. They smite it with a Hammer of Thunderbolts, they shoot it with Arrows of Slaying, they ravage it with Destruction spells, they blast it with a Staff of the Magi. Fights end swiftly. They're lethal. The above has to be worked into the context of one's visualisation and for me at least, it changes everything.
ReplyDeleteGary was explicit that this game was about heroes and in the end, however long PCs wade in the mire, it is.
As an aside, attributes actually do go up, one way or another. PCs become cunning and driven looking for this edge.
The kind of magical apocalypse the PCs could generate by level 18 was a bit much for me in my early days, forcing me to seek elsewhere for my drama in RPGs. It's been many a year passed, that has seen me come full circle...hopefully better equipped to present the problem of high level D&D to my players.
FTR, I've played four multi year, high level campaigns. A sphere hopping,Spell Jammer affair; Dark Sun and a home brew setting. The fourth was 3.5 Wilderlands and my memories of the late stages are not fond ones.
Gary Gygax addressed this in the 1e DMG, actually. Here's the excerpt (apologies if someone else referenced this, but I didn't see it in the comments) from page 82
ReplyDelete"It is quite unreasonable to assume that as a character gains levels of ability in his or her class that a corresponding gain in actual ability to sustain physical damage takes place. It is preposterous to state such an assumption, for if we are to assume that a man is killed by a sword thrust which does 4 hit points of damage, we must similarly assume that a hero could, on the average, withstand five such thrusts before being slain! Why then the increase in hit points? Because these reflect both the actual physical ability of the character to withstand damage — as indicated by constitution bonuses — and a commensurate increase in such areas as skill in combat and similar life-or-death situations, the “sixth sense” which warns the individual of some otherwise unforeseen events, sheer luck, and the fantastic provisions of magical protections and/or divine protection. Therefore, constitution affects both actual ability to withstand physical punishment hit points (physique) and the immeasurable areas which involve the sixth sense and luck (fitness)."
He goes on to talk about why there's a 1 minute round, and why it's not really a tactical system of tit-for-tat and, in his opinion, shouldn't be:
Page 61 is Gygaxian wonderfulness again as he explains why it's a one minute round and not a blow by blow. Here's two little bits on that for fun (I love the "manifold" reasons part that he stops short of explaining):
"...It would be no great task to devise an elaborate set of rules for highly complex individual combats with rounds of but a few seconds length. It is not in the best interests of an adventure game, however, to delve too deeply into cut and thrust, parry and riposte. The location of a hit or wound, the sort of damage done, sprains, breaks, and dislocations are not the stuff of heroic fantasy. The reasons for this are manifold."
And (I think he had someone in mind here btw):
"As has been detailed, hit points are not actually a measure of physical
damage, by and large, as far as characters (and some other creatures as well) are concerned. Therefore, the location of hits and the type of damage caused are not germane to them. While this is not true with respect to most monsters, it is neither necessary nor particularly useful. Lest some purist immediately object, consider the many charts and tables necessary to handle this sort of detail, and then think about how area effect spells would work."
In other words, he wants this part to be in your mind. It is a lot more about movement and dodging and luck and supernatural avoidance and not actually about hitting and being able to take the hit. Think of the fight in Halfling's Gem against the White Dragon (sorry for Salvatore fans if I have that wrong; it's been a while).
Finally, even though I don't run it much, this might be the best explanation for why the short/long rest system of 5E might make some sense. Loss of hit points would equate to recharging mojo, although in my OSR, 1E and 2E games I plan to continue with rules as written (I am so glad I avoided 1E initiative in the post until this last line!)
Gary Gygax addressed this in the 1e DMG, actually. Here's the excerpt (apologies if someone else referenced this, but I didn't see it in the comments) from page 82
ReplyDelete"It is quite unreasonable to assume that as a character gains levels of ability in his or her class that a corresponding gain in actual ability to sustain physical damage takes place. It is preposterous to state such an assumption, for if we are to assume that a man is killed by a sword thrust which does 4 hit points of damage, we must similarly assume that a hero could, on the average, withstand five such thrusts before being slain! Why then the increase in hit points? Because these reflect both the actual physical ability of the character to withstand damage — as indicated by constitution bonuses — and a commensurate increase in such areas as skill in combat and similar life-or-death situations, the “sixth sense” which warns the individual of some otherwise unforeseen events, sheer luck, and the fantastic provisions of magical protections and/or divine protection. Therefore, constitution affects both actual ability to withstand physical punishment hit points (physique) and the immeasurable areas which involve the sixth sense and luck (fitness)."
He goes on to talk about why there's a 1 minute round, and why it's not really a tactical system of tit-for-tat and, in his opinion, shouldn't be:
Page 61 is Gygaxian wonderfulness again as he explains why it's a one minute round and not a blow by blow. Here's two little bits on that for fun (I love the "manifold" reasons part that he stops short of explaining):
"...It would be no great task to devise an elaborate set of rules for highly complex individual combats with rounds of but a few seconds length. It is not in the best interests of an adventure game, however, to delve too deeply into cut and thrust, parry and riposte. The location of a hit or wound, the sort of damage done, sprains, breaks, and dislocations are not the stuff of heroic fantasy. The reasons for this are manifold."
And (I think he had someone in mind here btw):
"As has been detailed, hit points are not actually a measure of physical
damage, by and large, as far as characters (and some other creatures as well) are concerned. Therefore, the location of hits and the type of damage caused are not germane to them. While this is not true with respect to most monsters, it is neither necessary nor particularly useful. Lest some purist immediately object, consider the many charts and tables necessary to handle this sort of detail, and then think about how area effect spells would work."
In other words, he wants this part to be in your mind. It is a lot more about movement and dodging and luck and supernatural avoidance and not actually about hitting and being able to take the hit. Think of the fight in Halfling's Gem against the White Dragon (sorry for Salvatore fans if I have that wrong; it's been a while).
Finally, even though I don't run it much, this might be the best explanation for why the short/long rest system of 5E might make some sense. Loss of hit points would equate to recharging mojo, although in my OSR, 1E and 2E games I plan to continue with rules as written (I am so glad I avoided 1E initiative in the post until this last line!)
Yes, I understand that - it's been going around the blogosphere for a long time and I've written posts in support of it before. I get the argument and it makes sense in some respects, but my feeling is that at the higher levels the argument breaks down. Taking area effect as an example: a dragon's breath attack does a certain amount of hp damage. Is *that* abstract? If so, how is it abstract? It hits a 1st level hireling and a 15th level PC at the same time. The hireling is fried but the 15th level PC is singed. Or somehow dodges? He just happens to have a sixth sense for what's coming and slips behind a conveniently located boulder?
DeleteHere's a nice visualization of a 1st level magic-user (maybe split class 1st level fighter?) vs. an (at least) adult red dragon (skip to 02:35 for the money shot).
Deletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJRaLnLDMWg
Not quite a hireling, but not much better... As I said earlier, fantasy media is replete with such examples.
Anyone who can't visualise a combatant of basically human stature, reach, and moves bringing down building-sized demons and dragons and bizarre monsters, hasn't played enough Dark Souls.
ReplyDeleteD&D designers apparently also haven't played enough Dark Souls, since fights with huge monsters are often fundamentally the same as fights with equal-sized opponents, just trading blows toe to toe (somewhat literally), instead of leaning into the disparity with things like climbing the monster to reach a vulnerable spot, maneuvering underfoot to be difficult to reach yourself, attacking a vulnerable spot like a tendon not for the hp damage or a kill shot but to stagger the monster to create an opening for hp damage or a kill shot, baiting dangerous but avoidable attacks that create an opening as the monster recovers... however all these can be imagined even if the fight is simple hp attrition, just like Errol Flynn style swordplay is supposed to be imagined from simple you-hit-I-hit hp attrition between more normal and normal-sized foes.
Anyone who can't visualise a combatant of basically human stature, reach, and moves bringing down building-sized demons and dragons and bizarre monsters, hasn't played enough Dark Souls.
ReplyDeleteD&D designers apparently also haven't played enough Dark Souls, since fights with huge monsters are often fundamentally the same as fights with equal-sized opponents, just trading blows toe to toe (somewhat literally), instead of leaning into the disparity with things like climbing the monster to reach a vulnerable spot, maneuvering underfoot to be difficult to reach yourself, attacking a vulnerable spot like a tendon not for the hp damage or a kill shot but to stagger the monster to create an opening for hp damage or a kill shot, baiting dangerous but avoidable attacks that create an opening as the monster recovers... however all these can be imagined even if the fight is simple hp attrition, just like Errol Flynn style swordplay is supposed to be imagined from simple you-hit-I-hit hp attrition between more normal and normal-sized foes.
As I mentioned above, Dark Souls is an excellent modern example. It's no trouble whatsoever to extrapolate from that particular representation of man vs Colossus, to the imaginal reality of the mind's eye. In fact, pre-DS, i had something like this going on, as did Miyazaki, or he wouldn't have made it.
DeleteHowever this is clearly a most subjective issue. There's maybe not much to be gained in comparing imaginations. Or maybe there is? Perhaps some work better with details and complexities and others with grand images. Or some combination of the two, or...or...
'The eye of man hath not heard, the ear of man hath not seen, man’s hand is not able to taste, his tongue to conceive, nor his heart to report what my dream was. I will get Peter Quince to write a ballad of this dream. It shall be called “Bottom’s Dream” because it hath no bottom.'
It's not a question of not being able to imagine that kind of scene. It's a question of not being able to imagine that kind of scene *given D&D's predicates*.
DeleteD&Ds predicates as you lay them out, I think are not ones i cleave to. I've already spoken to the presence of magic items and how they create myths out of men. I think that's a big deal.
DeleteHowwver, if I understand correctly, your main issue is with anatomical relationality, said relationality being subject to the collection of images from film and TV that you found most affecting.
To me, this suggests a contextual basis for the appreciation of D&D.
The next layer is in how HP connect to this image collage. Since they are described as possessing both a physical and metaphysical component, this suggests (to me), that they (HP) have a nature which is fundamentally changeable. They can be different things, depending upon the context in which they are depleted.
AD&D also, has a 1 minute round. Stuff going on there is going to be abstract *in the main*, but with occasional descents into close detail as the action demands and as the rules demand (eg. A low hp scenario vs a high one).
I hope that establishes my position adequately. I'm not saying you're wrong. Only on this particular issue, I don't experience any difficulty. It could be that I and others, are more abstract thinkers and you're a detail man. Or that could be utter bollocks, I only know you to the extent that I enjoy your writing and imagination.
I don't know, I only experience.
I'm not sure what D&D's predicates are, in this context.
DeleteI thought you meant things like a guy, made of meat instead of something like liquid metal, holding a sword instead of something like a raw thunderbolt, moving about as a person might (albeit a powerfully athletic one) instead of jumping from treetop to treetop wuxia-style.
On that assumption, I offer Dark Souls as a visual inspiration, but maybe I misunderstood which predicates those are, that you feel are making it difficult to visualise fights like these in D&D?
The first thing I think of in this regard is how Saving Throws are abstracted in TSR D&D - Ie, you saves reflect the type of danger, not the manner in which it is avoided as it in from 3e onwards.
ReplyDeleteSo save vs Dragon Breath may be throwing up a protective barrier for a magic-user, angling a shield for a fighter, dodging out of the way for a thief, etc.
It's not terribly different for high level play, imo. To be honest, even in TSR D&D, I always pictured that high level heroes began to acquire a certain mythic nature, albeit of a more oblique character in WoTC D&D. Odysseus, if not Finn McCool.
IMO, the problem really is the opacity of Hit Points. Not that being abstract is a problem, but they go off in various neither-here-nor-there directions. I've moaned about it before.
https://mythlands-erce.blogspot.com/2017/05/a-critical-examination-of-hit-points.html
I just saw on Reddit that someone had posted the question "can your strongest character be killed by a nuke", and I thought of this post.
ReplyDeleteI presume they're playing 5e.