# From the pages of 1e



## Kannik (Jan 14, 2010)

While I was home over the holidays, I cracked open my first edition PHB and DMG to just read bits for fun.  I started with the forewords and introductions and... I don't think I had ever read them before.  When I started playing the group of experienced players explained the game to me, perhaps that's why I never felt the 'need' to read them -- at any rate I read a lot of things that struck me in reading these opening pages.  I thought I’d share for amusement some of the passages that stuck with me the most, without commentary...



			
				Gary Gygax et al said:
			
		

> This is often no more than a matter of simple etiquette, and following a few simple guidelines will suffice to make the game experience more fun for everyone concerned, to wit:
> 
> 1)	Be an organized player; have the necessary information on your character readily at hand and available to the Dungeon Master.
> 2)	Cooperate with the Dungeon Master and respect his decisions; if you disagree, present your viewpoint with deference to his position as game moderator. Be prepared to accept his decision as final and remember that not everything in the game will always go your way!
> ...






			
				Gary Gygax et al said:
			
		

> It is important to keep in mind that, after all is said and done, ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS is a game. Because it is a game, certain things which seem "unrealistic" or simply unnecessary are integral to the system. Classes have restrictions in order to give a varied and unique approach to each class when they play, as well as to provide play balance. Races are given advantages or limits mainly because the whole character of the game would be drastically altered if it were otherwise. Everything in the ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS system has purpose; most of what is found herein is essential to the campaign, and those sections which are not — such as sub-classes of characters, psionics, and similar material — are clearly labeled as optional for inclusion.






			
				Gary Gygax et al said:
			
		

> Each character has a varying number of hit points, just as monsters do. These hit points represent how much damage (actual or potential) the character can withstand before being killed. A certain amount of these hit points represent the actual physical punishment which can be sustained. The remainder, a significant portion of hit points at higher levels, stands for skill, luck, and/or magical factors. A typical man-at-arms can take about 5 hit points of damage before being killed. let us suppose that a 10th level fighter has 55 hit points, plus a bonus of 30 hit points for his constitution, for a total of 85 hit points. This is the equivalent of about 18 hit dice for creatures, about what it would take to kill four huge warhorses. It is ridiculous to assume that even a fantastic fighter can take that much punishment. The same holds true to a lesser extent for clerics, thieves, and the other classes. Thus, the majority of hit points are symbolic of combat skill, luck (bestowed by supernatural powers), and magical forces.






			
				Gary Gygax et al said:
			
		

> If the game is not challenging, if advancement is too speedy, then it becomes staid and boring. Conversely, a game can be too deadly and become just as boring, for who enjoys endlessly developing new characters to march off into oblivion in a single night of dungeon adventuring?!






			
				Gary Gygax et al said:
			
		

> It was initially contemplated to term character power as rank, sp complexity was to be termed power, and monster strength was to termed as order. Thus, instead of a 9th level character encountering a 7 level monster on the 8th dungeon level and attacking it with a 4th lev spell, the terminology would have been: A 9th rank character encounter: a 7th order monster on the 8th (dungeon) level and attacked it with a 4t power spell. However, because of existing usage, level is retain throughout with all four meanings, and it is not as confusing as it may no seem.






			
				Gary Gygax et al said:
			
		

> Read how and why the system is as it is, follow the parameters, and then cut portions as needed to maintain excitement. For example, the rules call for wandering monsters, but these can be ;not only irritating — if not deadly — but the appearance of such can 'actually spoil a game by interfering with an orderly expedition.... . Rather than spoil such an otherwise enjoyable time, omit the wandering monsters indicated by the die.






			
				Gary Gygax et al said:
			
		

> A few brief words are necessary to insure that the reader has actually obtained a game form which he or she desires. Of the two approaches to hobby games today, one is best defined as the realism-simulation school and the other as the game school. AD&D is assuredly an adherent of the latter school. It does not stress any realism (in the author's opinion an absurd effort at best considering the topic!). It does little to attempt to simulate anything either. ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS is first and foremost a game for the fun and enjoyment of those who seek to use imagination and creativity.





What passages (of those above or other ones) strike you and have stuck with you over the years (or in recent reading, like me )?


----------



## Wik (Jan 14, 2010)

I remember that hit point one pretty clearly - I used to bring it up whenever someone would wonder why I was describing an attack as "It hit your armor, but failed to cut you... you take six points of damage".  

Here's one from the Cook Expert BECMI set that I thought was kind of neat:



			
				Dungeons and Dragons Fantasy Adventure Game: Expert Rulebook (1981) said:
			
		

> A player character party with a wide range of abilities can usually defeat any single monster opponent.  Thus, monsters will often team up for mutual survival.  Special groups of monsters combining missile, spell, and melee attacks can be set up.  Also, monsters can be given special leaders with more hit dice (or maximum hit points) and other special abilities.  For example:  a magic-user with two apprentices, a bodyguard of bugbears, and a charmed manticore; or an orc leader with clerical spells leading a party of bow-armed orcs with trained hunting lizards; and so on.




Kind of makes me think "shades of 4e" for some silly reason.


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Jan 14, 2010)

Kannik said:


> What passages (of those above or other ones) strike you and have stuck with you over the years (or in recent reading, like me )?



All of those and more.  I don't always agree on certain details but he seems to have always had a keen grasp of the broad strokes.  Time and again I see only trouble arise when someone is being dismissive of things that Gary wrote over 30 years ago.


----------



## jaerdaph (Jan 15, 2010)

One thing that always stuck with me from 1e (the DMG, IIRC) was when Gary described the difference between Intelligence and Wisdom with an example of how he had the intelligence to know that smoking causes lung cancer, but lacked the wisdom to quit smoking.


----------



## Aurumvorax (Jan 15, 2010)

> 4) If you are unable to participate in an adventure, give the other players and the DM some concrete guidelines if your character is going to be included in the adventuring group; be prepared to accept the consequences, good or bad, in any case.



This this and this some more.  I've always hated the concept of a player not showing up to the game and his character mysteriously disappearing in a shroud of mist or being called away on a quest.

No.  Your character becomes an NPC and the DM controls him based on how you roleplayed him.  If you banged your head on every door and kicked halflings in the berries, the DM will play your guy exactly the same.

I don't remember who began the "character disappears" thing but the first time I saw it was in the 3E DMG.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jan 15, 2010)

Aurumvorax said:


> This this and this some more. I've always hated the concept of a player not showing up to the game and his character mysteriously disappearing in a shroud of mist or being called away on a quest.
> 
> No. Your character becomes an NPC and the DM controls him based on how you roleplayed him. If you banged your head on every door and kicked halflings in the berries, the DM will play your guy exactly the same.
> 
> I don't remember who began the "character disappears" thing but the first time I saw it was in the 3E DMG.




First place I remember seeing this was in the 2E Campaign & Catacomb guide.


----------



## Holy Bovine (Jan 15, 2010)

Aurumvorax said:


> This this and this some more.  I've always hated the concept of a player not showing up to the game and his character mysteriously disappearing in a shroud of mist or being called away on a quest.
> 
> No.  Your character becomes an NPC and the DM controls him based on how you roleplayed him.  If you banged your head on every door and kicked halflings in the berries, the DM will play your guy exactly the same.
> 
> I don't remember who began the "character disappears" thing but the first time I saw it was in the 3E DMG.




Oh do i ever agree with this!  The only problem with your solution is that I, as a DM, have more than enough to do without playing a PC on top of everything else.  Atleast that was what I thought until I came across the 'companion character' rules in the 4E DMG 2.  I have since created 'companion character' versions of the PCs whose players aren't there reguarly (mutually agreed to beforehand) and now the PCs know that when 'Mary' can't show up her PC is still there, still helping in fights and skill checks but never takes the spotlight.  Also it makes running the PC way easier as you only have a few powers & skills to know.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Jan 15, 2010)

Gary Gygax et al REPEATED FROM OP said:
			
		

> It was initially contemplated to term character power as rank, sp complexity was to be termed power, and monster strength was to termed as order. Thus, instead of a 9th level character encountering a 7 level monster on the 8th dungeon level and attacking it with a 4th lev spell, the terminology would have been: A 9th rank character encounter: a 7th order monster on the 8th (dungeon) level and attacked it with a 4t power spell. However, because of existing usage, level is retain throughout with all four meanings, and it is not as confusing as it may no seem.





Kannik said:


> What passages (of those above or other ones) strike you and have stuck with you over the years (or in recent reading, like me )?



Holy ... ..moly!!!  That Gygax quote just rocked my world.  I came up with one of those terms over a year ago recognizing it as absolutely more indicative of what level meant in that case.  And the rest included make just as much sense in my understanding even if they are not equally definitive.

Where in print is this?  I would love to know.


----------



## grodog (Jan 15, 2010)

jaerdaph said:


> One thing that always stuck with me from 1e (the DMG, IIRC) was when Gary described the difference between Intelligence and Wisdom with an example of how he had the intelligence to know that smoking causes lung cancer, but lacked the wisdom to quit smoking.




LOL:  Joe Bloch and I were chatting about that very same quotation last night!


----------



## M.L. Martin (Jan 15, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> First place I remember seeing this was in the 2E Campaign & Catacomb guide.




   It was presented as an option, there, and not one of the best--the preference was for "PC becomes NPC" or "PC generally stays in the background ", IIRC.


----------



## Aurumvorax (Jan 15, 2010)

I regulate absent characters to the background and they help fight, but I just never liked the concept of them disappearing.  A buddy of mine told a story about a DM that had a detailed excuse made up where characters were summoned to other planes or swallowed by a red mist.  Eventually he got so fed up that when an important character disappeared he went "Guys.  We have plane shift and high level divination.  We have to find this dude!"

Not the best way to handle the situation through derailment but he got the DM to accept that characters should remain in game in the background and fight when necessary (I don't like the silent robot Mark the Red).


----------



## N0Man (Jan 15, 2010)

> It was initially contemplated to term character power as rank, sp complexity was to be termed power, and monster strength was to termed as order. Thus, instead of a 9th level character encountering a 7 level monster on the 8th dungeon level and attacking it with a 4th lev spell, the terminology would have been: A 9th rank character encounter: a 7th order monster on the 8th (dungeon) level and attacked it with a 4t power spell. However, because of existing usage, level is retain throughout with all four meanings, *and it is not as confusing as it may no seem.*




Oh... there are some that might disagree.  ;-)

Order of the Stick #12


----------



## N0Man (Jan 15, 2010)

I want to add the part about Hit Points is something I always remembered, since I very first read the AD&D books as a kid.  It was pretty ingrained in me, so when 4th Edition came along, I was honestly confused by why so many people had so much trouble with this idea, and even would continue to argue that hit points were *always* about pure damage, and nothing more...

I've always felt that 4E was a little bit of AD&D/2E, with a little 3E, with a little something new, and a lot of these quotes reinforces that feeling for me.

I'm not trying to argue superiority or any edition-war nonsense, but rather that 4E isn't the aberration that that some of it's most vocal critics like to make it out to be.


----------



## Lanefan (Jan 15, 2010)

Aurumvorax said:


> This this and this some more.  I've always hated the concept of a player not showing up to the game and his character mysteriously disappearing in a shroud of mist or being called away on a quest.
> 
> No.  Your character becomes an NPC and the DM controls him based on how you roleplayed him.



What I usually do is let the other players run it.  Either one player takes it on or they run it by committee, doesn't matter to me.  And if the missing player has left instructions that are counter to what the players are having the PC do, the instructions take priority.


> I don't remember who began the "character disappears" thing but the first time I saw it was in the 3E DMG.



I knew such a thing had existed for a long time; the first I knew of anyone actually taking it seriously enough to use it was by reading people's posts here in ENWorld.

Lan-"we call them QPCs - quasi-player characters - when their players aren't there"-efan


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jan 15, 2010)

N0Man said:


> I want to add the part about Hit Points is something I always remembered, since I very first read the AD&D books as a kid.  It was pretty ingrained in me, so when 4th Edition came along, I was honestly confused by why so many people had so much trouble with this idea, and even would continue to argue that hit points were *always* about pure damage, and nothing more...
> 
> I've always felt that 4E was a little bit of AD&D/2E, with a little 3E, with a little something new, and a lot of these quotes reinforces that feeling for me.
> 
> I'm not trying to argue superiority or any edition-war nonsense, but rather that 4E isn't the aberration that that some of it's most vocal critics like to make it out to be.



Agreed.

@ levels:

In german language we actually had different terms:h
spell level was "Grad"
character level was "Stufe"
dungeon level was "Ebene"
and monster level was usually described as "Trefferwürfel" (Hit dice)


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 15, 2010)

N0Man said:


> I was honestly confused by why so many people had so much trouble with this idea, and even would continue to argue that hit points were *always* about pure damage, and nothing more...





Can you point me to this thread?  I've never heard of anyone making that argument.

I have heard the argument that hit points always represent some amount of actual damage, however miniscule (so that, say, poison or paralysis can take effect), but I've never heard *anyone* say "hit points were *always* about pure damage, and nothing more".


RC


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jan 15, 2010)

howandwhy99 said:


> Holy ... ..moly!!! That Gygax quote just rocked my world. I came up with one of those terms over a year ago recognizing it as absolutely more indicative of what level meant in that case. And the rest included make just as much sense in my understanding even if they are not equally definitive.
> 
> Where in print is this? I would love to know.




If memory serves, this can be found in the front part of the 1E PHB somewhere. Don't have my books handy at the moment.


----------



## Jhaelen (Jan 15, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Can you point me to this thread?  I've never heard of anyone making that argument.



Then I guess, you've never read any of the numerous threads about 4e healing surges and/or warlords with their martial healing powers.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jan 15, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Can you point me to this thread?  I've never heard of anyone making that argument.
> 
> I have heard the argument that hit points always represent some amount of actual damage, however miniscule (so that, say, poison or paralysis can take effect), but I've never heard *anyone* say "hit points were *always* about pure damage, and nothing more".



He wasn't necessarily talking about a thread here. I've heard that argument several times over the years (in person), including (IIRC) in Dragon forum letters?


----------



## Fifth Element (Jan 15, 2010)

Holy Bovine said:


> I have since created 'companion character' versions of the PCs whose players aren't there reguarly (mutually agreed to beforehand) and now the PCs know that when 'Mary' can't show up her PC is still there, still helping in fights and skill checks but never takes the spotlight.  Also it makes running the PC way easier as you only have a few powers & skills to know.



That's a brilliant idea, I'd never thought of that. I let the other players run a missing PC, but that can be difficult (in 3E or 4E), especially if they're a caster. Things get missed since they're not familiar with the character's mechanics. A companion version seems ideal.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 15, 2010)

Jhaelen said:


> Then I guess, you've never read any of the numerous threads about 4e healing surges and/or warlords with their martial healing powers.






Fifth Element said:


> He wasn't necessarily talking about a thread here. I've heard that argument several times over the years (in person), including (IIRC) in Dragon forum letters?




I have participated in a number of threads on the topic of 4e healing surges; no one has ever put forth the claim that "hit points were *always* about pure damage, and nothing more" in any of them AFAICT.  Without a link, I suspect that this is either misremembering (which, certainly, I am guilty of from time to time as well) or misreading.

The argument has always been, AFIACT and IMHO and IME, that pre-4e hit points always contain some element of damage (not "*always* about pure damage, and nothing more"), whereas 4e hit points may or may not contain some element of damage, which is the case being determined at the time those hit points are healed, rather than at the time those hit points are taken.

(And I don't mean to reopen the entire can of worms, because it has been hashed to death, and there are some creative answers to this "problem" [for those who see it as such] out there already.)


RC


----------



## Fifth Element (Jan 15, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> I have participated in a number of threads on the topic of 4e healing surges; no one has ever put forth the claim that "hit points were *always* about pure damage, and nothing more" in any of them AFAICT.  Without a link, I suspect that this is either misremembering (which, certainly, I am guilty of from time to time as well) or misreading.



There's a difference between arguing something "IME" (from your perspective), and arguing that someone else's experience didn't happen because you haven't had the same experience.

I have, in person, been met with the argument that hit points are purely physical damage. Please don't assume I'm misremembering just because it's never happened to you.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 15, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> There's a difference between arguing something "IME" (from your perspective), and arguing that someone else's experience didn't happen because you haven't had the same experience.
> 
> I have, in person, been met with the argument that hit points are purely physical damage. Please don't assume I'm misremembering just because it's never happened to you.




I said, "I suspect" not "I assume".  I am skeptical of the claim; that is not the same as assuming that I am right.

The threads I participated in had a lot of:

Poster 1:  Pre-4e hit points always contain some element of damage, whereas 4e hit points may or may not contain some element of damage, which is the case being determined at the time those hit points are healed, rather than at the time those hit points are taken.

Poster 2:  How can you say that hit points were *always* about pure damage, and nothing more?

Poster 1:  Erm....that isn't what I am saying.  I said "some element of damage".

(discussion continues for three pages)

Poster 2:  How can you say that hit points were *always* about pure damage, and nothing more?

Poster 1:  Erm....​
This is such a common model for InterWeb discussion that, barring evidence to the contrary, when someone says "X makes crazy claim Y", there is always a part of me that thinks "Are we sure that X is really making that claim"?

Of course, it is a common model for InterWeb discussion that X really does make crazy claim Y, so I don't assume that the claim wasn't made.  

I just don't assume that it was.


RC


----------



## Fifth Element (Jan 15, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> I said, "I suspect" not "I assume".  I am skeptical of the claim; that is not the same as assuming that I am right.



Regardless of which word you chose to use, it's a rather disrespectful thing to say. Rather than addressing the comment itself you put forth the idea that the person making the comment is probably mistaken about their own experiences.

I have told you twice that this has happened to me personally. If all you're going to do is suggest that I'm wrong about my own personal experiences, I'll ask you not to respond to me at all.


----------



## billd91 (Jan 15, 2010)

There were most definitely people arguing that hit points not only should include actual physical injury but that was pretty much entirely what they were. And for them, it may have made sense, particularly if they started with 3e rather than 1e/2e. From the 3.5 Player's Handboodk glossary:



			
				3.5 PH glossary said:
			
		

> hit points (hp): A measure of a character’s health or an object’s
> integrity. Damage decreases current hit points, and lost hit points
> return with healing or natural recovery. A character’s hit point total
> increases permanently with additional experience and/or permanent
> ...






			
				3.5 PH p. 135 said:
			
		

> Hit Points
> Hit points represent how much damage a character can take before
> falling unconscious or dying.




Note that there isn't the expansive description of what hit points are that you saw from the 1e quote. I would submit that for a player who started with 3e, their view of what a hit point is was a lot narrower than those of us who started with earlier editions.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 15, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> Regardless of which word you chose to use, it's a rather disrespectful thing to say. Rather than addressing the comment itself you put forth the idea that the person making the comment is probably mistaken about their own experiences.
> 
> I have told you twice that this has happened to me personally. If all you're going to do is suggest that I'm wrong about my own personal experiences, I'll ask you not to respond to me at all.




I would say that a rational response for a request for evidence would be depend upon (A) if you care whether or not the other person is convinced, and (B) how much effort is required to produce the evidence.  If you care, and the evidence is easy to produce, it is sensible to produce it.  It you care, but the evidence is difficult to produce, simply pointing the other person in the right direction is all that can be expected.  If you do not care, no further response is really necessary.

It is hardly disrespectful to ask for a link, or to suggest that someone might be mistaken.  "How dare you suggest that I may be wrong!" is, OTOH, fairly arrogant.  The claim that it is *disrespectful to ask for evidence*, IME, is usually related to the lack thereof.

If I claimed that I had seen Bigfoot on more than one occasion, you would be well advised to consider that I might be wrong about my own experiences.  

People misremember things all the time.  It is an extremely common, and well documented, occurance.  Moreover, even if your memory is spot-on, your conclusions from reading the materials may be mistaken.  I know that this has happened to me, more than once, both from the position of misreading and from the position of being misread.

Suggesting that one might misremember or have misunderstood is suggesting that the person is human; nothing more, nothing less.  I misremember exactly how many times I have misunderstood!  But I will certainly admit that, over the course of my life, there has been a considerable amount of misremembering and misunderstanding.  Modern psychology would suggest that this is not unusual.

If you have a great desire to discuss standards of evidence, standards of etiquette, etc., I will be happy to do so in a forked thread.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 15, 2010)

billd91 said:


> Note that there isn't the expansive description of what hit points are that you saw from the 1e quote. I would submit that for a player who started with 3e, their view of what a hit point is was a lot narrower than those of us who started with earlier editions.




Thank you, bill91.  Those quotes make the claim that hit points were *always* about pure damage, and nothing more, far more likely to have occurred, and render anecdote meaningful (to me at least) in terms of evidence.

XP to you!


RC


----------



## Fifth Element (Jan 15, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> It is hardly disrespectful to ask for a link, or to suggest that someone might be mistaken.  "How dare you suggest that I may be wrong!" is, OTOH, fairly arrogant.



I disagree, obviously. It's not disrespectful to ask for a link, in the sense of "I don't remember that, can you show me that?" But framing it in terms of "you're wrong about your experiences" is disrespectful. I would suggest "His experiences don't match mine, therefore his probably didn't happen" is arrogant.

Skepticism is often warranted in life. But in the discussion of a game that thousands upon thousands of people play in thousands of locales in thousands of different ways, it should be unsurprising that some people have had different experiences with the game than you have. If your first step is to question their veracity, very little productive discussion will arise.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 15, 2010)

You are misreading what I am saying.

"You're wrong about your experiences" is your own creation.

Nor did my request relate to other people's game experiences, except tangentially.

Perhaps you can understand why I might suspect that you have also misread other things, at other times?


RC


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Jan 15, 2010)

N0Man said:


> I want to add the part about Hit Points is something I always remembered, since I very first read the AD&D books as a kid.  It was pretty ingrained in me, so when 4th Edition came along, I was honestly confused by why so many people had so much trouble with this idea, and even would continue to argue that hit points were *always* about pure damage, and nothing more...




Until 4e, it WAS always about damage.  At first level, an 8 point hit from a long sword, is a sword through the belly.  Only the hardiest of warriors survives that.  At 10th level, the same 8 point hit, is only a scratch - the warrior is more skilled, and manages to - almost - turn the sword thrust away, it's merely a painful, but superficial wound - but it's still damage.  This is why the 4e mechanics bother me.  I can't help but visualize any hit point loss as physical damage, so, healing surges and martial healing powers ruin the entire game for me.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 15, 2010)

JRRNeiklot said:


> Until 4e, it WAS always about damage.  At first level, an 8 point hit from a long sword, is a sword through the belly.  Only the hardiest of warriors survives that.  At 10th level, the same 8 point hit, is only a scratch - the warrior is more skilled, and manages to - almost - turn the sword thrust away, it's merely a painful, but superficial wound - but it's still damage.  This is why the 4e mechanics bother me.  I can't help but visualize any hit point loss as physical damage, so, healing surges and martial healing powers ruin the entire game for me.




Thank you for providing an example.  

You are correct about how earlier hit points worked, but surely you must realize that "the warrior is more skilled, and manages to - almost - turn the sword thrust away" is modelled with hit points.

Therefore, (pre 4e) all hit points are about damage, but not all hit points are *only* about damage.


RC


----------



## Scribble (Jan 15, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Therefore, (pre 4e) all hit points are about damage, but not all hit points are *only* about damage.RC




In your opinion I guess?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 15, 2010)

Scribble said:


> In your opinion I guess?




If you like.


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Jan 15, 2010)

You know, sometimes I do wish I were a moderator so I could stop people entirely from taking discussions down certain paths.  I can see where this is going.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Jan 15, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Thank you for providing an example.
> 
> You are correct about how earlier hit points worked, but surely you must realize that "the warrior is more skilled, and manages to - almost - turn the sword thrust away" is modelled with hit points.
> 
> ...




I agree completely.  I hastily posted before reading all of the thread.


----------



## MarkB (Jan 15, 2010)

JRRNeiklot said:


> Until 4e, it WAS always about damage.  At first level, an 8 point hit from a long sword, is a sword through the belly.  Only the hardiest of warriors survives that.  At 10th level, the same 8 point hit, is only a scratch - the warrior is more skilled, and manages to - almost - turn the sword thrust away, it's merely a painful, but superficial wound - but it's still damage.  This is why the 4e mechanics bother me.  I can't help but visualize any hit point loss as physical damage, so, healing surges and martial healing powers ruin the entire game for me.




I think the mental leap needed here isn't to think that hit points are not always about damage, but to accept that expenditure of healing surges _also_ represents damage. A 4e character who is at full hit points, but has used up five of his eight daily surges, is not uninjured - he is simply as recovered as he can be, and ready to face another fight. His injuries have been bound with bandages or knitted together with magic, but it won't be until he tends them properly during an extended rest that they actually heal.

Likewise, when a martial (or even divine) character 'heals' another character by allowing them to restore hit points by expending a healing surge, he's not making them unwounded - he's simply allowing them to tough it out or bind their wounds temporarily, converting an injury that's immediately hazardous to health (represented by expended hit points) into one that can be dealt with on a longer-term basis (represented by expended healing surges).

Once you realise that a 4e character's state of health is measured by a combination of two scales - hit points and healing surges - and that only a character who has a full set of both is truly uninjured, the abstraction becomes a lot less jarring.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 15, 2010)

Man in the Funny Hat said:


> You know, sometimes I do wish I were a moderator so I could stop people entirely from taking discussions down certain paths.  I can see where this is going.




My apologies.

Insofar as I am concerned, this side excursion is done.


RC


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Jan 15, 2010)

Man in the Funny Hat said:


> You know, sometimes I do wish I were a moderator so I could stop people entirely from taking discussions down certain paths.  I can see where this is going.




That'd be pretty boring.  If we were to meet in person, and I asked you about your health, must the conversation stay there?  Could I not also ask about your D&D game or how you liked the weather, or how many times you injected Mark McGwire with steroids?


----------



## N0Man (Jan 16, 2010)

billd91 said:


> There were most definitely people arguing that hit points not only should include actual physical injury but that was pretty much entirely what they were. And for them, it may have made sense, particularly if they started with 3e rather than 1e/2e. From the 3.5 Player's Handbook glossary:
> 
> ...
> 
> Note that there isn't the expansive description of what hit points are that you saw from the 1e quote. I would submit that for a player who started with 3e, their view of what a hit point is was a lot narrower than those of us who started with earlier editions.




I honestly didn't remember what 3.0 / 3.5 had to say about Hit Points at all.  I probably didn't even bother to read how they were defined in those books, so it's interesting to see that here as well.

There most certainly was arguing here, on Gleemax, and other forums regarding representing real damage.  Actually, it would probably be more accurate to say that there were outspoken critics of 4E who claimed all healing did healing on physical damage, to mock it.

Stuff like, "the Warlord shouts at your wounds and they close up!", or "now everyone has the magical ability to heal themselves", which was a total mischaracterization.

However, I'm not really interested enough tonight to prove myself right on the internet that I'm willing to dig through 2 year old forum posts from here, Gleemax, and other forums.  ;-)

Anyway, there is still some great advice in those original quotes.


----------



## Kannik (Jan 18, 2010)

For myself, what I found most striking about the quotes were:


How the game styles of certain DMs I’ve played with tie in or don’t tie in with the advice.  For example, while DM fiat and authority is mentioned on the player’s end, it also directs the DM to recognize that wonton fiat and destruction makes for a very poor game.  Even certain rules/conventions should be forgone if it makes for a less fun experience!

That even from the get go (A)D&D was seen as a gamist system, and not a simulationist one.  Design was done to function as an adventure enabler.

That even from the get to  (A)D&D was interested in game balance (even if that balance was set within a certain framework/mindset, ie, mages should be uber powerful at high levels and weak at low levels).

That the description of Hit Points is one of the most effective ever, even despite (or perhaps because of) the snarky nature of the sentence that begins “it is ridiculous to assume...”

That players are advised on certain things that are argued will make it a better game for all.

That for the purposes of ‘tradition’ we end up with fun Order of the Stick comics.  

Reading this over the break was one of the greatest “accidents” I’ve had in a long time – it really offered up new perspective to me and grounding in how the game was actually envisioned.


----------

