Game Mechanics for Role Playing?

[vodokar]

Ever since I started playing D&D 4e, I have routinely had people tell me that there is no roleplaying in the game.

Inevitably this is by people who still play 3.5 or pathfinder. When I ask them what they mean, they say something like that there are no game mechanics that support it.

Forgive me, but I have no clue what these people are talking about. Game mechanics for roleplaying? That is an oxymoron. Roleplaying is something that you do. You walk into the pub and talk to the bartender about if he knows anything about x, y, and z. He talks back to you. I'm unaware of this "game mechanic" that you need to do it. Is there a "talk to bartender" skill that you need? Is there a "speaking in character" skill that you need before you can do it? Or how about a "I only know what my character would know" skill.

Yes, I am being a bit satirical here. I'm aware that 3rd edition had a few skills like farming or performing or whatever. 4e didn't continue those skills. Does that mean you can't be a farmer or a performer anymore for roleplaying purposes. NO. It just means you don't need some book giving you permission to do so.

I can't attest to how everyone else plays 4e. I'm sure there are players and DM's out there that don't have a clue how to roleplay. However, every game I play, wether it's 4e or Savage Worlds or whatever, we roleplay. We don't need no stinkin permission or rules to do so. Thank you very much. :)

If people are playing 4e without roleplaying, it is either because they don't know how or know that you should or they simply don't care about it. It isn't cause the rules don't allow you to do it. It's a player issue, not an issue of the game.

[Koldoon]

it's an excuse by people who support 3.x and Pathfinder not to give 4e a chance. It makes me sad, but I'm not going to force anyone to play 4e who doesn't want to. Frankly I see more roleplaying in my 4e games than I ever did in my 3.x games.

I still wonder where they get this idea from, given that 1st and 2nd edition had very little framework for role playing, and yet I find we did plenty of role playing in those editions.

Anyway. yes, you're right, it doesn't make sense. Any more than the argument that "but you're always going back to just one at-will over and over" from the same group... who thought that was okay for a 1st level wizard after they cast their one spell for the day, or for the fighter to simply continuously do what would now be considered a melee basic attack over and over again.

I will never understand just why people were so vehement this time around that the "other" edition sucked. 4e supporters were just as guilty of attacks on 3.x games. I abandoned a number of cherished forums over these arguments and I still cringe every time I hear the dreaded "but they dumbed it down and there's no role playing, it's just a stupid MMO" argument launched against 4e, or the arguments going the other way against Pathfinder (who I credit for having some of the best adventures ever).

What they all fail to realize is that role play will happen if the DM and players want it to happen. System doesn't really matter.

[vodokar]

Precisely my point. The point of my post wasn't to have a 3.5/pathfinder vs. 4e debate. It is about roleplaying.

I, personally, have never even played 3.5 or pathfinder. I went straight from 1e to 4e. (I have no idea of the merits or detriments of those games, nor was I commenting on them, other than the fact that it seems like anytime I mention that I play 4e that people from that camp step up to put me down cause I don't play their game.) I've also played about 15 other gaming systems. The two others that I'm currently active in is Savage Worlds and Dresden Files (Fate).

My opinion from all that gaming exposure and my point is that roleplaying doesn't need any type of mechanics; it doesn't matter what game it is; either the players do it or they don't.

There definitely weren't any game mechanics for roleplaying in 1e. It was just something that we did.

[Leonal]

I've almost done away with asking for diplomacy/intimidate/bluff/sense motive rolls in my Pathfinder games, which some might consider roleplay-mechanics.

For trivial and less interesting stuff, rolling is fine, but for more exciting encounters it'll be the players' roleplaying vs my roleplaying of the NPCs that decides the outcome.
When I play Rogue Trader (Warhammer 40k RPG), there are fewer rolls outside of combat I feel. Also having degrees of success makes it a bit different, and more interesting to roll than in for example Pathfinder (where the static bonuses makes the die roll irrelevant at times).


******
[Off Topic regarding 4e]
I've only tried 4e once, after getting the three core books, but one of my players couldn't play a wizard like he wanted to, and we abandoned it in favor of Pathfinder.

I don't see it as having less options for roleplaying, but compared to 3.5/Pathfinder it seemed (from the core books at least) to have less utility options. I don't have the books as they're eight time zones away, but Magic Jar, for example, comes to mind.

Of course now he has abandoned GMing Pathfinder in favor of RT, though for other reasons.
[End Off Topic]

[Koldoon]

I've always found it interesting that this topic comes up in regard to 3.5/4e because they actually have pretty much the exact same mechanics for role playing... diplomacy/bluff/intimidate/sense motive in 3.5 vs. diplomacy/bluff/intimidate/insight in 4e. But I agree with the sentiment of the OP, roleplaying doesn't really depend on the system, but on a willingness of the players and DM.

[RKBrumbelow]

It very well could be the kinds of players each system draws in. There are certainly systems that are designed to encourage role-play (I tend to think of WoD in this category) and there are some that tend to promote dungeon crawling (D&D 4th comes to mind)

[Griogre]

While some systems do encourage role playing more than others (typically the ones that have characters that have interesting virtues/flaws) I don't see any version of D&D encouraging role playing more or less than any other version. Its always the group and how much they want to do.

[RKBrumbelow]

While some systems do encourage role playing more than others (typically the ones that have characters that have interesting virtues/flaws) I don't see any version of D&D encouraging role playing more or less than any other version. Its always the group and how much they want to do.

Oh I strongly have to disagree, D&D and AD&D (really any version before 2000) tended to draw in people who were looking to create their own stories and characters. Since 2000 the people I see being drawn in tend to have more of a video game playing mentality where action is pushed more sternly than it had been.

Certainly it is a spectrum, there can be heavy action in more story telling systems and vice versa. You are correct in that it can well depend on the players, but I think the systems draw different players based on their own strengths.

[vodokar]

RK does have a good point in that the new gamers are different than older gamers, thus that sometimes drives some of the differences in game design.

For a few years before I found Fantasy Grounds and restarted my pen & paper role playing, I drifted thru various MMO's. I had some fun and it tided me over, but never truly satisfied me--primarily because of the lack of roleplaying. Sure, there were some people that like me had done actual roleplaying in the past and so tried to bring it online, but most didn't even get the concept.

So, some of those people likely drifted into playing modern versions of D&D. Nothing wrong with that. If they don't get roleplaying or don't want to, but can still have fun, I'm all for it.

But still, my basic point is true: it's not the game itself; it's the players.

Again, RK is right. Some games more heavily promote roleplaying and their genre's steer you more heavily towards that. I'm currently running two games: Dresden Files under the FATE system which will be about 30% action and 70% roleplaying and the writers heavily encourage roleplaying. My D&D campaign, on the other hand, will likely be more like 70% action and 30% roleplaying. It's a different genre, so the mix is different, but both elements are still definitely there. Nothing in D&D stops you from roleplaying.

In fact, here is a direct quote out of the 4e Rules Compendium:

"
TRY IT!

When you play an adventurer, you put yourself into his or her boots and make decisions as if you were that person. You decide which door your adventurer opens next. You decide whether to attack a monster, to negotiate with a villain, or to attempt a dangerous quest. You can make these decisions based on your adventurer's personality, motivations, and goals, and you can even speak in character, if you like. Within the boundaries set by the DM, you control what your adventurer can do and say in the game.

Your hero can attempt anything you can think of. Want to talk to the dragon instead of fighting it? Want to disguise yourself as an orc and sneak into the foul lair? Go ahead and give it a try. An adventurer's actions might work, or they might fail spectacularly, but either way the player contributed to the unfolding story and had fun."

Sounds like an encouragement to roleplay to me.


And I'm certainly not buying the idea that 1e was more heavy on roleplaying. Case in point. Village of Homlet module by Gygax. Most of the npc's listed didn't even have names. You had a building with a "farmer" along with stats. Uh, why we need stats for a farmer. Was I supposed to fight him? If I were to talk to him, the DM would have had to determine his name and backstory and such on the spot, because the module neglected to tell you any of that. Oh, well, probably not the best example of a module ever done for D&D. But, you see the point.

[Griogre]

Oh I strongly have to disagree, D&D and AD&D (really any version before 2000) tended to draw in people who were looking to create their own stories and characters. Since 2000 the people I see being drawn in tend to have more of a video game playing mentality where action is pushed more sternly than it had been.

Certainly it is a spectrum, there can be heavy action in more story telling systems and vice versa. You are correct in that it can well depend on the players, but I think the systems draw different players based on their own strengths.
I'm going to strongly disagree with you that D&D and AD&D encouraged role playing more than any other edition. I stongly think it was the group make up not the rules.

While I do believe that the introduction of skills was a negative influence on role playing but I believe it was negligible compared to the basic will of the gaming group to spend time interacting with NPCs and each other vs. just going to a dungeon and kicking in a door.

I think you do have a point about certain systems do drawn in different types of gamers. But my point is most groups of the same players tend to do about the same amount of role playing using any system. That's why I don't see much difference in any version of D&D with the same group. If you had a group and they rotated playing D&D, AD&D, C&C, D&D 3.x or 4E I just don't think you would see a difference in the amount of role playing if the group was comfortable with all those different systems.

[RKBrumbelow]

Griogre, I am going to strongly suggest you re read what I said then try again.

[Griogre]

I read it and was surprised you said you strongly disagreed with me because I though we were more or less on the same page, other than you seem to think editions matter much more than I do.

[RKBrumbelow]

I think it is the players that the editions attract, a secondary correlation. For example: the more recent a player is to P&P RPGs the more likely they seem to be to prefer the dungeon crawl, they also are going to gravitate to newer rule sets. The inverse of this is that people who have stayed with RPGs longer tend to prefer more RP to dungeon crawling and tend to prefer older rulesets. Applying that to the D&D line 2nd Ed players will tend to be more RP 4th Ed players will tend to be more dungeon crawlers. Also I do believe that it takes less effort to simply dungeon crawl and newer rulesets tend to want to widen their market base and so work to the lowest common denominator.

[vodokar]

While I can certainly understand the point RK is trying to make, my own experience is that Griogre is correct. It just depends on who is playing. I just spent 3 hours roleplaying in a 4e game - no combats during the whole session. Likewise, in my game yesterday, we had one minor combat in 3 hours.

Do the younger crowd seem to do less roleplaying. I think that is likely true. Are they more drawn to newer games. Well, they can't buy the old games, at least without a lot more effort. So, I would think that is true also. But, it isn't the game, it's the people. The younger crowd often play differently than the older crowd, regardless of the game.

[Griogre]

Very, very true on age. At one time I owned a game store close to an elementary school and had some game tables in the back for games. I would have some of the kids drop in for a few hours after school. It was fascinating to listen to those little kids play. They had a great time but no adult or teenager would play anything like they did.

[bigbsonnier]

I don't know that this thread is the place for this question but reading your posts really made it pop into my head. I have a group that really like the dungeon crawling and awesome slaughter of badazz monsters. I love that too, but i'm also very much a story guy, i love the story of the heroes talking to the towns folk barganing with the emporer/villian etc. and i don't really get that kind of feed back from the group when i DM.

I also get the "and we're walking, and we're walking" when they are traveling from town to dungeon entrance. so its usually me rolling a few times to try and randomize monsters in the area but if feels dry and then for camp its whos on watch roll roll roll ok we get up and head to the dungeon and i get "and we're walking... " all over again.

Sadly the game usually takes us 4 hours to go through 2 or 3 rooms in a dungeon caues they all like to Bull around and its great fun and coke snotting hilarious at times but my story fix goes right out the window sometimes and it kills me a little.

Any ideas on some fixes for these problems.

[RKBrumbelow]

It might not work in FG2 but around a table we have an OOC stick. Whomever has the OOC stick can speak OOC, anyone else who says something it is in character. Also we have designated break times, if you are not at the table and did not leave written instructions then you forfeit your offensive and defensive actions :)

[vodokar]

The best thing that a DM can do is to lead by good example. If you make the NPC's unique and interesting with distinguishing characteristics, mannerisms and speech patterns and doing interesting stuff, sometimes the players will take the hint and start following suit.

Then again, just not everyone is into roleplaying. Some people are simply action junkies. Nothing wrong with that either. The hard part, as DM, you need to meet both types of players needs. Ultimately, everyone is there to have fun. That's what is important at the end of the day. You shouldn't force someone to roleplay anymore than you should force someone not to. All you can do is lead them to the water...It is up to them if they want to drink.

Luckily, not everyone is like that; despite what some people might say, even in games like 4e, people do roleplay. It just depends on the group of players you have and how much they want to get into it.

[ddavison]

I noticed that when my local groups first tried 4E that they tended to lessen their roleplaying and let the mechanics lead the way a little too much. I think the various names of the powers and canned fluff were viewed as replacements for describing what the characters were actually trying to accomplish. The focus then became on the mechanical differences between the different powers and normally the fluff got dropped off as the focus shifted to the in-game effects. In older editions you normally just hit or missed and then you often felt compelled to describe it in your own words. Now it felt like you were reading from cue cards or just spouting off the names of the attacks or mechanical effect.

Another issue was that healing and second winds were getting handed around without a roleplaying description of what was actually going on. Because HP loss was viewed as physical damage in earlier editions, the idea of getting *healing* by all these sources seemed anti-roleplaying because it didn't make sense with this assumption. IMO, this is mostly due to poor choice of wording and the whole system would have worked better if they completely changed the terms around so it disassociated itself from previously defined values.

Skill challenges were another area that tried to force a game mechanic solution to something that would have been more roleplaying based in earlier editions. People seemed to spend more time trying to find a goofy way to rationalize the use of their highest stat bonus than deciding what made the most sense from a roleplaying perspective.

Everyone's mileage may vary, but this is what I saw in two different groups I played with who moved to 4E after having played a lot of earlier editions. Over time they were able to adjust and bring the roleplaying aspects back in to the sessions -- but it took them a while.

I think the GM can take the lead on this with just a little encouragement and by framing things appropriately. There is no reason why your players can't describe their actions just like they did before. You can easily describe the damage you receive as something other than just physical. You can roleplay your way through skill challenges. For the most part you can do any amount of roleplaying you did in the old system just as easily in the new system. You just have to bring the roleplaying mindset with you to whatever system you choose to use.

[vodokar]

Greetings ddavison. Nice to hear from you and thanks for all you do for us.

What you stated about hit points is actually a myth, however. Here it is, directly from page 34 of the 1e AD&D PHB:

CHARACTER HIT POINTS
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 flghter 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.

So, there we have it, straight from E. Gary Gygax. The definition of hit points has never changed, thus, it isn't hard to imagine that something like second wind or healing surges can exist as a mechanic, since the vast majority of hit points gained over 1st level don't actually represent that your body takes more to damage it; they represent skill, luck, inner reserve, downright honeryness and stubborness and whatever.

[ddavison]

I stand corrected then. ;)

I've made it a point to stress that in games I run but didn't realize it was specifically called out like that in the rules.

[RKBrumbelow]

I stand corrected then. ;)

I've made it a point to stress that in games I run but didn't realize it was specifically called out like that in the rules.
Stand uncorrected: You were correct, not Vodokar

As is shown below the Definition of HP has varied from edition to edition:

Chainmail
Hits
Hits not Hit Points. Literal weapon hits as opposed to arbitrary damage.

D&D 1st ed Basic Rules pg 3 (1983) TSR 1011b
Damage and hit points
In the game, when any creature is hit (either monster or character), damage is caused. There is a way of keeping track of damage, called hit points. The number of hit points is the amount of damage that a creature can take before being killed. Hit points can be any number; the more hit points a creature has, the harder it is to kill. We often use an abbreviation for hit points: it is hp.
Your fighter starts with 8 hp (hit points) and still has all 8, since the goblin never hit you. He may have hit your armor or shield, but never got through your protection, so these attacks are still called “misses” - they didn’t actually damage your character.

ADD 2nd ed phb pg 11 (1989) TSR 2101:
Hit points
A number representing 1. how much damage a character can suffer before being killed, determined by Hit Dice (9.u.). The hit points lost to injury can usually be regained by rest or healing. 2. how much damage a specific attack does, determined by weapon or monster statistics, and subtracted from a player's total.

D&D 3rd ed PHB Ch. 8 Combat Basics:
Hit Points
Hit points represent how much damage a character can take before falling unconscious or dying.

D&D 3.5 PHB pg 309 (????)
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 increases in Constitution, or temporarily through the use of various special abilities, spells, magic items, or magical effects (see temporary hit points and effective hit point increase).

D&D 4th ed PHB pg 293 (2008)
Hit points
(HP) measure your ability to stand up to punishment, turn deadly strikes into glancing blows, and stay on your feet throughout a battle. Hit points represent more than physical endurance. They represent your character’s skill, luck, and resolve—all the factors that combine to help you stay alive in a combat situation.

[vodokar]

It's totally understandable why hits in chainmail was so simplistic, as the game was still in it's infancy and hadn't been totally thought through yet.

Clearly once Gygax had given enough thought on the matter and realized that it didn't make sense that a human being could take more damage than 4 large warhorses, he accounted for that in his explanation. Clearly that is the concept that he intended.

The explanation given in Basic, while not the same exact explanation, still clearly states that not all of the damage taken is actual physical damage to the body. The attack may have hit, but the damage gets caught on your shield, armor or whatever, but doesn't actually damage you in a meaningful way.

I think the intent is still there in this statement. Not all damage you take is actually mortally wounding you. A good portion of that represented in your hit points is actually abstractions of your fighting skill. They just aren't actually coming out and stating that, but you can read between the lines. You have to keep in mind that these basic books were very short and abreviated compared to the advanced rulebooks, which went into alot more explanation.

As I have never played 2nd, 3rd or 3.5, I have no idea if that is a complete explanation of hit points from those books or something taken out of context, but I'll give it the benefit of the doubt. It seems that in an effort to reduce the amount of space devoted to the explanation, they cut out the meaning that was intended, at least in the players manual. Perhaps there might have been a deeper explanation than in the DM guide? Or perhaps they just stopped caring about having a reasonable explanation. If anything, sounds like stuff got cut on the editors chopping block--just give us a quick definition that takes less space so we can squeeze in other stuff -- clearly the original intent got lost.

So, the explanation of hit points in 1e looks remarkably like that in 4e, (no, not exactly, but with the same intent), but somehow they went off the train tracks during the years of 2nd, 3rd and 3.5? Now all of a sudden, despite Gygax's very clear and logical explanations in 1e of why a human couldn't actually take more damage than 4 large warhorses, they could?

I think this has more to do with the political situation with TSR and Gygax and then WOTC eventually taking it over, than it does the actual intent that Gygax had in mind. Or that the writers should have looked at his original explanation and made sure their new explanation still contained the same meaning.

Well, RK, fine, so you are right. Some of the writers messed up. Through all different translations of the rules, the meaning got lost.

Other than your usual simply trying to prove someone wrong just because you think you can, did you have any point?

My point was to go back to the originator of D&D and see what he said about the subject. The explanation I pulled was very clear about what he thought and intended for hit points. It isn't my fault if later writers came along and screwed the pooch.

I don't think they really intended to change the meaning, but sometimes when you start cutting text and trying to condense an explanation, you don't end up just with less words, you also end up with less meaning and an incomplete and illogical explanation. It's as if they expected everyone already knew what Gygax originally wrote and so didn't feel the need to explain further. For the older players, that was likely a correct assumption. However, when newer players came along that had never read his explanations in 1e, thats how the different concepts got started.

I will allow that I mistated it as being "myths", and will change it to be, "a conceptualization of hit points not originally intended by the creator of D&D".

Feel better now?

As I was comparing 1e to 4e, it is clear where they got the idea that healing surges were a possible mechanic, as they went back to the original intent of the meaning of hit points -- that it is an abstraction that includes skill, luck etc. and not just the physical damage you actually can take.

[Griogre]

I don't know that this thread is the place for this question but reading your posts really made it pop into my head. I have a group that really like the dungeon crawling and awesome slaughter of badazz monsters. I love that too, but i'm also very much a story guy, i love the story of the heroes talking to the towns folk barganing with the emporer/villian etc. and i don't really get that kind of feed back from the group when i DM.

I also get the "and we're walking, and we're walking" when they are traveling from town to dungeon entrance. so its usually me rolling a few times to try and randomize monsters in the area but if feels dry and then for camp its whos on watch roll roll roll ok we get up and head to the dungeon and i get "and we're walking... " all over again.

Sadly the game usually takes us 4 hours to go through 2 or 3 rooms in a dungeon caues they all like to Bull around and its great fun and coke snotting hilarious at times but my story fix goes right out the window sometimes and it kills me a little.

Any ideas on some fixes for these problems.
Groups are different. When I first started playing I thought there was only "One True Way to Play" TM. Now, I know people play games to have *fun*. And what is fun for each group is different. Also I have found as a group becomes more familiar with the rules of an RPG then they do tend to roleplay more, like Doug said.

[Griogre]

Stand uncorrected: You were correct, not Vodokar

As is shown below the Definition of HP has varied from edition to edition:

Chainmail
Hits
Hits not Hit Points. Literal weapon hits as opposed to arbitrary damage.

D&D 1st ed Basic Rules pg 3 (1983) TSR 1011b
Damage and hit points
In the game, when any creature is hit (either monster or character), damage is caused. There is a way of keeping track of damage, called hit points. The number of hit points is the amount of damage that a creature can take before being killed. Hit points can be any number; the more hit points a creature has, the harder it is to kill. We often use an abbreviation for hit points: it is hp.
Your fighter starts with 8 hp (hit points) and still has all 8, since the goblin never hit you. He may have hit your armor or shield, but never got through your protection, so these attacks are still called “misses” - they didn’t actually damage your character.

ADD 2nd ed phb pg 11 (1989) TSR 2101:
Hit points
A number representing 1. how much damage a character can suffer before being killed, determined by Hit Dice (9.u.). The hit points lost to injury can usually be regained by rest or healing. 2. how much damage a specific attack does, determined by weapon or monster statistics, and subtracted from a player's total.

D&D 3rd ed PHB Ch. 8 Combat Basics:
Hit Points
Hit points represent how much damage a character can take before falling unconscious or dying.

D&D 3.5 PHB pg 309 (????)
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 increases in Constitution, or temporarily through the use of various special abilities, spells, magic items, or magical effects (see temporary hit points and effective hit point increase).

D&D 4th ed PHB pg 293 (2008)
Hit points
(HP) measure your ability to stand up to punishment, turn deadly strikes into glancing blows, and stay on your feet throughout a battle. Hit points represent more than physical endurance. They represent your character’s skill, luck, and resolve—all the factors that combine to help you stay alive in a combat situation.
You did Chainmail and the later 83 rules but what about First Fantasy Campaign (Gygax and Arnson's campaign prior to D&D) and HTK? Hits to Kill. They were a follow on to Chainmail's hits and prior to D&D. You can see the transition from it's direct physical damage to the HP being more than pure physical damage. I remember some of the Judge's Guild stuff being HTK.

[RKBrumbelow]

You did Chainmail and the later 83 rules but what about First Fantasy Campaign (Gygax and Arnson's campaign prior to D&D) and HTK? Hits to Kill. They were a follow on to Chainmail's hits and prior to D&D. You can see the transition from it's direct physical damage to the HP being more than pure physical damage. I remember some of the Judge's Guild stuff being HTK.

Thanks Griogre, I did not mention First Fantasy Campaign simply because I had to restrict myself to materials I actually had copies of. Heck, I haven't even seen a copy of First Fantasy Campaign in 30 years. I suspect if one made a careful study of available materials you would see 2 relatively distinct paths the various editions took. However, it is 1:20 AM my time and I have been up for 21 hours so I think I will leave that examination for another time.

[Phystus]

...
D&D 3.5 PHB pg 309 (????)
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 increases in Constitution, or temporarily through the use of various special abilities, spells, magic items, or magical effects (see temporary hit points and effective hit point increase).

...

True, that's what it said there.

But that isn't all they have to say about hit points in the 3.5 PHB.

3.5 Player's Handbook, page 145
What Hit Points Represent: Hit points mean two things in the game world: the ability to take physical punishment and keep going, and the ability to turn a serious blow into a less serious one. For some characters, hit points may represent divine favor or inner power. When a paladin survives a fireball, you will be hard pressed to convince bystanders that she doesn't have the favor of some higher power.

~P

[RKBrumbelow]

True, that's what it said there.

But that isn't all they have to say about hit points in the 3.5 PHB.

3.5 Player's Handbook, page 145
What Hit Points Represent: Hit points mean two things in the game world: the ability to take physical punishment and keep going, and the ability to turn a serious blow into a less serious one. For some characters, hit points may represent divine favor or inner power. When a paladin survives a fireball, you will be hard pressed to convince bystanders that she doesn't have the favor of some higher power.

~P

I would be one that would tend to lump "divine power" in with the "magical effects" listed in my quote.

[Phystus]

Given the context in which magical effects are mentioned in that sentence, I'm not so sure I'd agree.

But even granting that point, the paragraph I quoted also mentions "the ability to turn a serious blow into a less serious one". That line, it seems to me, does, to a degree, convey a thought similar to the 1st Edition.

I'll concede it's a pretty watered-down version, though, and small enough to easily overlook.

~P

[RKBrumbelow]

I still maintain that the definition has varied in different incarnations of the "D&D" rulesets.

It is a common misconception that 5-8 editions are even revisions of each other. I strongly suspect that a careful analysis would reveal at least two streams that sometimes overlap and intermingle, yet maintain themselves separately.

[vodokar]

I agree with you on this one RK.

It is obvious by what you have shown that different writers over the years have indeed changed the meaning and intent. I have already conceded that I was wrong on the statement that it hadn't changed. Clearly it did.

The changes prior to 1e AD&D were understandable, as Gygax was building the game from the spark of an idea in Chainmail to what would eventually become a very professional work in 1e AD&D, while simultaneously building TSR from nothing to a professional business. From Chainmail to 1e was only about 4 years. Then 1e lasted from 77 to 89.

And you are also correct that Basic D&D and follow-ons were a totally separate design stream. They essentially had two versions of D&D going at the same time which weren't compatible with each other. The basic game had much shorter rulebooks and didn't go into much design explanations and discussions like the AD&D book did.

One of the things I loved about the 1e PHB and DMG written by Gygax is that he didn't just tell you the rule, he explained it and gave good clear logical examples. They are not simply rulebooks, but a window into the soul of what the game's creator conceived the game to be. Both books read more like a conversion between him and you the player rather than a laying down of rules in a technical manual. Even today, I consult what he wrote in those books.

Clearly, things started to change by the time that 2e came around and continued to change even more in subsequent versions. The real question is whether those were good changes. I personally, don't think so. I think it was sloppy at the very least and possibly showed a lack of respect for the work that Gary Gygax had done in laying out the concepts of D&D in the 1e manuals.

Regarding the discussion specifically on the intent of the meaning of hit points - I point again to Gygax's statement about the 4 heavy war horses. He had thought thru the implications of the rules and used common sense.

I have to admit that when it came to basic concepts like the definition of hit points, I didn't actually read it in my 4e manuals, since I've known what was intended from the creator of D&D from back when I read his explanation in 77. Having seen your quotation, however, I'm happy that, at least in regards to this topic, they seem to be giving the man a little more respect in going back to his original intent.

[damned]

i reckon you boys outta drink a couple of flagons of cheap ale and go slay some dragons :)