Most Ridiculous Rules in RPGS

[Keltest]

I'm pretty this was brought up before, but I don't think this really accounts for the rules on immersion in lava or acid, and various other effects. You could throw those specific rules out, but the 'death by a thousand cuts' thing still kinda strains suspension of disbelief. Wouldn't 'divine protection' or whatever try to avoid the blow entirely?

(To be fair, it's not like high-level PCs are typically taking a hundred itty bits of d8 damage- at that point, enemies have massively boosted damage output as well, so the amount of blow-for-blow trading is comparable. But in principle, if you don't want the superhero feel, better defensive skills would seem more a more elegant solution.)

If there is a problem where lava or falling or whatever does not kill someone sufficiently quickly, its because the specific rules for how much damage those things do are out of tune with the reality (the reality being that you would have suffocated and/or spontaneously combusted long before you got anywhere near enough to actually touch lava) rather than because HP does not work as a system.

[Bohandas]

If there is a problem where lava or falling or whatever does not kill someone sufficiently quickly, its because the specific rules for how much damage those things do are out of tune with the reality (the reality being that you would have suffocated and/or spontaneously combusted long before you got anywhere near enough to actually touch lava)

These folks look ok

Spoiler

Show

I think you're thinking of pyroclastic flow.

And at any rate, spontaneous combustion wouldn't really make a huge difference because the rules for characters that are on fire are also underwhelming at high levels

[Segev]

I'm pretty this was brought up before, but I don't think this really accounts for the rules on immersion in lava or acid, and various other effects. You could throw those specific rules out, but the 'death by a thousand cuts' thing still kinda strains suspension of disbelief. Wouldn't 'divine protection' or whatever try to avoid the blow entirely?

(To be fair, it's not like high-level PCs are typically taking a hundred itty bits of d8 damage- at that point, enemies have massively boosted damage output as well, so the amount of blow-for-blow trading is comparable. But in principle, if you don't want the superhero feel, better defensive skills would seem more a more elegant solution.)

If there is a problem where lava or falling or whatever does not kill someone sufficiently quickly, its because the specific rules for how much damage those things do are out of tune with the reality (the reality being that you would have suffocated and/or spontaneously combusted long before you got anywhere near enough to actually touch lava) rather than because HP does not work as a system.

More or less this. I won't speak to "the reality," but if your problem is that hp damage from certain effects seems out of line with your verisimilitude, that is not a flaw in the concept of hp as presented in the system you're discussing. That's a flaw in how those effects are represented.

One could uncap falling damage, as a start. One could also give it a more polynomial or exponential increase. Or make it a save-or-die with a rapidly-increasing DC based on height. Nothing inherent to "hit points represent your ability to turn what would otherwise be a fatal blow into something non-fatal" compels (say) 1d6 per 10 feet of falling, capped at 20d6.

(Though, frankly, given that a PC high enough level to find 20d6 survivable probably also has access to resources which would let him feather fall or fly safely. And even if he doesn't, the triviality of such resources by that point means that it's not all that ludicrous for him to just use his hp as the resource to absorb the fall, instead.)

Regardless, main point: if your problem with hp is that lava damage and falling damage aren't well represented by them, then it's a problem with how those things are represented and/or the damage codes on those things, not with hp-as-a-concept.

[Max_Killjoy]

Again, can we... not? Or at least move to another thread?

I'd love to move on, but evidently if I say "D&D HP are ridiculous", I have to then defend not only that position, but also my character, against someone who thinks people who disagree with him are all idiots. I even tried putting that person on ignore.

[Lacuna Caster]

More or less this. I won't speak to "the reality," but if your problem is that hp damage from certain effects seems out of line with your verisimilitude, that is not a flaw in the concept of hp as presented in the system you're discussing. That's a flaw in how those effects are represented.

One could uncap falling damage, as a start. One could also give it a more polynomial or exponential increase. Or make it a save-or-die with a rapidly-increasing DC based on height...

One could, but if we're talking about adding and replacing rules- i.e, a design process- and baseline realism is your goal, it is mathematically simpler, and easier for players to interpret, to just not accumulate that many Hit Points to begin with, and have constant factors yield constant damage. It's something like hollow earth cosmology- you can modify all the physics in such a way as to preserve consistency with the starting assumption, but at that point, why bother? You're not getting any extra sim for your money (unlike, say, adding wound mechanics.)

[Keltest]

One could, but if we're talking about adding and replacing rules- i.e, a design process- and baseline realism is your goal, it is mathematically simpler, and easier for players to interpret, to just not accumulate that many Hit Points to begin with, and have constant factors yield constant damage. It's something like hollow earth cosmology- you can modify all the physics in such a way as to preserve consistency with the starting assumption, but at that point, why bother? You're not getting any extra sim for your money (unlike, say, adding wound mechanics.)

Ok, but then your 20th level fighter who can go toe to toe with a dragon is going to get offed by an orc with a sword and a lucky D20. Again, it isn't a problem with hit points, its a problem with the fall/lava/whatever damage. And I am definitely confused as to how it is simpler and more intuitive to rebalance the entire game around the new hit point pool than it is to just declare lava immediately lethal to people without magical protection.

[Bohandas]

More or less this. I won't speak to "the reality," but if your problem is that hp damage from certain effects seems out of line with your verisimilitude, that is not a flaw in the concept of hp as presented in the system you're discussing. That's a flaw in how those effects are represented.

One could uncap falling damage, as a start. One could also give it a more polynomial or exponential increase. Or make it a save-or-die with a rapidly-increasing DC based on height. Nothing inherent to "hit points represent your ability to turn what would otherwise be a fatal blow into something non-fatal" compels (say) 1d6 per 10 feet of falling, capped at 20d6.

The damage cap is actually kind of realistic because if you fall far enough eventually you stop accelerating, due to air resistence.

[Lacuna Caster]

Ok, but then your 20th level fighter who can go toe to toe with a dragon is going to get offed by an orc with a sword and a lucky D20.

*shrugs* Conceivably, yes, depending on just how the combat and damage interactions flow- nobody ever said realism was reliably fun, for certain values of 'fun'. But some folks value it anyway, to the extent that 'even veteran swordsmen need to think twice about violence' might be an intended selling point.

Again, it isn't a problem with hit points, its a problem with the fall/lava/whatever damage. And I am definitely confused as to how it is simpler and more intuitive to rebalance the entire game around the new hit point pool than it is to just declare lava immediately lethal to people without magical protection.

If you're talking specifically about taking apart D&D and reassembling around the new assumption, I would agree (though capping hit dice isn't the most unreasonable response.) But if we're talking more generally about whether Hit Points are 'objectively bad' as a way to represent and handle physiologically human protagonists... then I am forced to conclude there are better frameworks out there, yes.

[Lacuna Caster]

The damage cap is actually kind of realistic because if you fall far enough eventually you stop accelerating, due to air resistence.

Yes, this is known as terminal velocity.

[Keltest]

If you're talking specifically about taking apart D&D and reassembling around the new assumption, I would agree (though capping hit dice isn't the most unreasonable response.) But if we're talking more generally about whether Hit Points are 'objectively bad' as a way to represent and handle physiologically human protagonists... then I am forced to conclude there are better frameworks out there, yes.

If you define "better" exclusively as "more realistically" then sure, go the distance. But reality isn't neat and convenient for ruling, and theres absolutely no guarantee that it would be any easier to understand.

[Lacuna Caster]

If you define "better" exclusively as "more realistically" then sure, go the distance. But reality isn't neat and convenient for ruling, and theres absolutely no guarantee that it would be any easier to understand.

I'm just pointing out that, e.g, capping total HP at 20 or 30 or some other plausible human maximum (based on whatever the typical damage scale would be) isn't any more mathematically complex or harder to rule on than, e.g, gaining hit dice each 'level', for ever and ever. The latter is standard in D&D, while the former is simpler to interpret in realism-preserving ways.

[Keltest]

I'm just pointing out that, e.g, capping total HP at 20 or 30 or some other plausible human maximum (based on whatever the typical damage scale would be) isn't any more mathematically complex or harder to rule on than, e.g, gaining hit dice each 'level', for ever and ever. The latter is standard in D&D, while the former is simpler to interpret in realism-preserving ways.

Ok, but then you end up with people being completely unable to survive, say, a bear attack unless theyre in super ultra magic armor. When a party of ultra-epic legendary heroes are losing members to being attacked by wolves in the forest, that's a bit of a problem.

[Lacuna Caster]

Ok, but then you end up with people being completely unable to survive, say, a bear attack unless theyre in super ultra magic armor. When a party of ultra-epic legendary heroes are losing members to being attacked by wolves in the forest, that's a bit of a problem.

Is it, though?

Alternative question- if your heroes are safely insulated from the risk of death by, e.g, a nice deterministic damage buffer and resurrection mechanics, how heroic can they really be?

[Keltest]

Is it, though?

Alternative question- if your heroes are safely insulated from the risk of death by, e.g, a nice deterministic damage buffer and resurrection mechanics, how heroic can they really be?

A: those are wargs, which are both significantly larger and significantly more intelligent than wolves

B: none of the fellowship died, only the nameless non-herioic rohan grunts.

As for the "damage buffer", the fact that theyre so hard to kill is exactly what makes them heroes. Any shlub can go pick a fight with an orc and get themselves stabbed to death, but it takes a special type of person to be able to challenge the evil wizard and not just get killed by the obligatory trap door under the door mat of their evil castle, let alone actually kill the evil wizard.

[ace rooster]

Ok, but then you end up with people being completely unable to survive, say, a bear attack unless theyre in super ultra magic armor. When a party of ultra-epic legendary heroes are losing members to being attacked by wolves in the forest, that's a bit of a problem.

True, but it is not like that is not a problem anyway. A bear specifically has improved grab, and good luck getting a better grapple check than it before level 12 without shinies (Ok yeah it is easy if you build for it, but who does?). HP falls down as a defence mechanic because status effects ignore it.

I don't think that HP as a defence mechanic is ridiculous. I think that the fact that there exist basic effects that ignore all defence mechanics is the ridiculous bit.


To push another direction, I'm going to bring up black tentacles. Sure, it is a great spell, but it is ridiculous for two reasons.

Firstly, it seems to cherry pick when it is and is not magical. The tentacles are indestructable. Ignoring the fact that even force effects are not entirely indestructable, this should strongly suggest that it is magical. It also hits automatically. Again, magical effects are the only other things which hit automatically (which is another ridiculous rule anyway). An epic monk that does not get hit by rain will still be hit by the tentacles. In spite of this, it is still SR no, because they are mundane.

Secondly, despite the existance of a set of grapple rules, it does not follow them. Instead of an initial touch attack to hit, it autohits. It then does not do damage on establishing a grapple, where normally a standard grappler would.

[Max_Killjoy]

A: those are wargs, which are both significantly larger and significantly more intelligent than wolves

B: none of the fellowship died, only the nameless non-herioic rohan grunts.

As for the "damage buffer", the fact that theyre so hard to kill is exactly what makes them heroes. Any shlub can go pick a fight with an orc and get themselves stabbed to death, but it takes a special type of person to be able to challenge the evil wizard and not just get killed by the obligatory trap door under the door mat of their evil castle, let alone actually kill the evil wizard.

None of which requires a disassociated lump of "I can survive stuff" points that the character burns off as they survive stuff.

It can be based on better skills, being actually tougher, being luckier, etc, all as distinct mechanics that actually map to something discrete.

[Keltest]

None of which requires a disassociated lump of "I can survive stuff" points that the character burns off as they survive stuff.

It can be based on better skills, being actually tougher, being luckier, etc, all as distinct mechanics that actually map to something discrete.

Sure, ok, but now you have 3 or more different mechanics all modeling the same thing: a finite way to stave off death. Unless they aren't all finite, but some are instead hit or miss, in which case that's the current system we have.

[ace rooster]

None of which requires a disassociated lump of "I can survive stuff" points that the character burns off as they survive stuff.

It can be based on better skills, being actually tougher, being luckier, etc, all as distinct mechanics that actually map to something discrete.

It certainly can be, but it doesn't tend to give you a very good RPG mechanic. It can give you a great song of ice and fire game, as PCs die off randomly despite decent play against standard opponents, but that is often not the feel you want (despite realism). What you usually want is a system where good play should result in an almost 0% chance of PC death, and that number rapidly climbs with bad play. Ablative defences like HP are good for achieving this, where chance based systems are difficult to get safe enough and still have a game (ie, random bandits are either likely to kill a PC, or the players could go AFK and still have their characters win the encounter).

[kyoryu]

It can give you a great song of ice and fire game, as PCs die off randomly despite decent play against standard opponents

They really don't. Any protagonist-ish character in SoIaF really only dies from narrative complications. Not random arrows from a mook.

Any of the three protagonists, or any of the semi-protagonists have roughly the same level of plot armor when it comes to "random death". They die because, narratively, they've gotten themselves stuck in a box with no escape.

[Jormengand]

It certainly can be, but it doesn't tend to give you a very good RPG mechanic. It can give you a great song of ice and fire game, as PCs die off randomly despite decent play against standard opponents, but that is often not the feel you want (despite realism).

This is where I mention SIFRP, isn't it?

So, Song of Ice and Fire RP has hit points, but they don't magically increase as you get more experienced, and also they can only save you against one or two attacks before you start being injured or wounded in a more lasting manner, which actually means that if someone hits you with a greatsword, it's entirely possible that you'll actually take some kind of lasting injury from it - the principle of "Just a flesh wound" only goes so far. Of course, this is the kind of setting where any schmuck with a sword is dangerous, if not very dangerous, and the correct response to a dragon is less "Kill it and take its stuff!" and more "Run! Freaking hell, run!". So it works for that setting.

[Max_Killjoy]

Sure, ok, but now you have 3 or more different mechanics all modeling the same thing: a finite way to stave off death. Unless they aren't all finite, but some are instead hit or miss, in which case that's the current system we have.

Part of the disconnect here is that "staving off death" is a narrative meta-concept, which can randomly include any number of factors.

It's not "how evasive are you?" or "how lucky are you?" or "how physically tough are you?" or "how much do the gods like you?", but rather any, all, or none of these, depending on the circumstances.

Personally, I loath this sort of "he's hard to kill because he's the protagonist" things in fiction, and in RPGs. If the character is hard to kill for a demonstrable, discrete reason, that's fine, but I loath contrivances and plot armor.

[Lacuna Caster]

A: those are wargs, which are both significantly larger and significantly more intelligent than wolves

B: none of the fellowship died, only the nameless non-herioic rohan grunts.

Oh, but they easily could have, and they did indeed 'lose' a party member for some non-trivial length of time. And you may recall that 'dying to a random orc' is exactly what happened to Boromir.

And no, I don't think winning-ness is what makes a hero.

They really don't. Any protagonist-ish character in SoIaF really only dies from narrative complications. Not random arrows from a mook.

Several of them come close, if you include the effects of lingering infection. That said, I don't have a particular problem with some kind of additional metagame currency for, e.g, re-rolling saves-vs.-death, but I personally prefer if it's explicitly labelled as a luck mechanic (or karma, or artha, or hero points, or whatevs.)

[Max_Killjoy]

Oh, but they easily could have, and they did indeed 'lose' a party member for some non-trivial length of time. And you may recall that 'dying to a random orc' is exactly what happened to Boromir.

And no, I don't think winning-ness is what makes a hero.


Several of them come close, if you include the effects of lingering infection. That said, I don't have a particular problem with some kind of additional metagame currency for, e.g, re-rolling saves-vs.-death, but I personally prefer if it's explicitly labelled as a luck mechanic (or karma, or artha, or hero points, or whatevs.)

Exactly -- if there's going to be meta-currency or "ablative narrative armor", it should be a separate and explicit thing, not conflated with the actual qualitative and quantitative attributes of the character.

[Segev]

Please come back once the spell is called Cure Light Luck (and Remove Light Combat-Induced Stress Even Though That Wasn't Mind-Affecting, Honest).

"Turn fatal wounds into non-fatal wounds" doesn't mean "you're not wounded."

I'd love to move on, but evidently if I say "D&D HP are ridiculous", I have to then defend not only that position, but also my character, against someone who thinks people who disagree with him are all idiots. I even tried putting that person on ignore.

Ironically, it is precisely because you're insisting through your snide implications not just that "D&D HP are ridiculous," but that all who disagree with you are either stupid or maliciously being intellectually dishonest, that people keep arguing with you. If all your position is is that you, personally, find HP to be ridiculous (and in the connotative, rather than the denotative sense of literally "worthy of ridicule along with all who think otherwise"), then cut out the snide "isn't it amusing to watch people try to defend it" and accept that people do find it perfectly fine. Don't dodge refutations of your "fatal flaws" by scoffing and mocking people for daring to refute them, and then pretending they haven't been.

You can not like it. It's fine. You can't imply anybody who does is somehow your inferior. And then turning around and pretending I'm calling you "stupid" when I've done no such thing - and, unlike you, haven't even implied it - is, itself, pretty ridiculous.

The damage cap is actually kind of realistic because if you fall far enough eventually you stop accelerating, due to air resistence.

Sure. I don't really have an issue with falling damage; I expect high-powered heroes to be able to do amazing things like fall from great heights and pick themselves up to keep moving. My point was that, if you have a problem with that, then it isn't a flaw in the hp system, but in the falling damage system.

[Arbane]

It's not like there aren't ten million RPGs that have already solved the HP problem in different ways....

[kyoryu]

Several of them come close, if you include the effects of lingering infection.

I don't - that's a narrative complication, not *dead*. Plot armor doesn't prevent bad things from happening to you. It means (for a "true" protagonist) that your story will continue, and for "named characters" that you don't die from just random randomness.

[Enixon]

And you may recall that 'dying to a random orc' is exactly what happened to Boromir.

I have to take issue with that, Boromir didn't die fighting a random orc, he died fighting dozens upon dozens of the buggers, and in the book it's even more so, rather than the realistic three or so arrows in the movie, he was riddled full of them.

[Knaight]

It's not like there aren't ten million RPGs that have already solved the HP problem in different ways....

Without any number of these theoretically inevitable consequences for not using D&D style HP even.

[Grod_The_Giant]

For example, Exalted 3e, which I think has the best take on the "hit points as plot armor" business I've seen. Most of your attacks don't damage hit points-- instead, they steal initiative, which represents general combat advantage. Bigger weapons, more powerful attacks, and armor all modify that exchange. The only way to actually hurt someone is a special attack based pretty much entirely on how much initiative you've accumulated-- but which, in turn, is impossible to resist without magic. Environmental effects like, say, falling off a hundred foot cliff go straight to dealing lethal damage, so even the world's best swordsman can die if he tries to go for a swim in lava*.

In general, I agree that D&D-style hit points aren't the best mechanic, but they have the advantage of simplicity and intuitive understanding. I doubt anyone in the last twenty years has had to sit down and seriously explain what taking damage means in D&D, as opposed to games like Fate or Exalted. And "bucketloads of HP"-based scaling has a major gameplay advantage over AC-based scaling-- it's much more fun to have frequent-minor-but-cumulative hits for five rounds than it is to whiff four times and then die the fifth.



*Well, in theory. It is Exalted; it's quite possible that the world's best swordsman can activate a charm, brush the lava off his shoulder and go on to cut a mountain in half, but that's all magic.

[thirdkingdom]

Can we drop the subject of hit points, please? It seems pretty clear that, while disliked by some, D&D style hit points do not fall into the "ridiculous rules" category. I humbly suggest that we go back to talking about FATAL's anal circumference, or deadEarth's character generation.