Tuesday, May 19, 2009
RPG Design: In Defense of ... Hit Points
Hit points are stupid.Hit points are the general term used in RPGs to measure a character's health or ability to absorb damage. Different games may use other terms, but often fall back to the standard name given by the granddaddy of all RPGs, Dungeons & Dragons.
Hit points originated as an abstract representation of the ability to absorb attacks by a military unit of organization. When pulled from the wargame world to Dave Arneson's Blackmoore campaign (the origin of Dungeons & Dragons), this arbitrary measure was retained. The value made little sense - while a certain number of damage points might work to measure a ship's seaworthiness or a platoon's ability to take casualties and continue fighting, it was a poor measurement of an individual's health. After all, people don't just keep functioning unhindered while absorbing loads of damage, and then suddenly conk out once an empirical threshold is reached.
In Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, co-creator Gary Gygax tried to explain that hit points were only an abstraction. While an eight-point blow from a sword might be a lethal blow to a normal villager, for a skilled fighter (with dozens of hitpoints) this might only be a scratch - or even a lack of contact altogether, but more a representation of his stamina being "worn down" as he dodges what would have been a lethal blow. In other words, the abstraction of hit points included all kinds of other factors that would have been too tedious to model in the game.
A good argument, but it still falls a little flat when it becomes impossible to kill a fighter with a direct, maximum-damage hit from a CANNON.
And then other games went and modeled it anyway. I've played some of them. And yeah, they can get a little tedious. One of my favorite game series, the dice-and-paper World of Darkness game series, does this. They defend the tedium and complication by the intent that combat isn't all that much of a regular event in those games. Unless you are playing Werewolf: The Apocalypse, maybe...
However, the complexity of the simulation doesn't excuse computer RPGs. After all, an antique TI-99/4A can crunch numbers like nobody's business compared to a dice-and-paper tabletop game. We could get all the way down to simulating which tendon just got severed, the wound's impact on particular actions, track the risk of contracting tetanus, and exactly how much blood was lost before the wound was closed.
But is it fun?
That's the question. For some, it is. Some games - even dice-and-paper RPGs - actually get pretty detailed. Hackmaster even plays the level of detail for humor value (though it still uses hit points as a basic system). And I'm enough of a hardcore simulationist that I enjoy the more detailed combat systems that eschew the simplicity of hit points (by any other name) for more gritty wound levels or whatnot. But then, I'm also one of the players who thought that practically needing the equivalent of real-life pilot training to play Falcon 4.0 was part of the fun.
But even so - I really am not turned off by hit points. They may be stupid and unrealistic. They are an almost pointless abstraction in computer RPGs. They get friggin' silly as characters start unleashing triple- or quadruple-digit-damage - just a meaningless gamey element with no grounding in... anything.
But the dumb ol' D&D-style "hit point" mechanic has some compelling virtues that make it fun:
#1 - It's simple. Players can easily make decisions based on this mechanic, and don't need a big learning curve to understand it. Even beginners "get it" quickly.
#2 - Players can (usually) receive fair warning. Hit-point based combat comes down to a race to zero health. Simple hit-point based systems allow you to recognize you are losing the race and adapt accordingly - changing tactics or retreating. While the threat of instant death can be kinda exciting, when it actually happens to your character it's kind of lame.
#3 - It keeps combat balanced and exciting. While it is more realistic to have injuries debilitate a character long before they kill him, this leads to one-sided battles. The stronger (or luckier) side gets an early advantage that keeps widening. An early setback in the plain ol' D&D hit point system doesn't practically guarantee failure. You can still make a comeback. The playing field doesn't change balance much until individuals start dying on either side. And, thanks to #2, you get plenty of warning.
#4 - Increasing numbers are psychologically appealing. We like measuring growth. With simple hit points and damage - as incredibly unrealistic (to the point of ridiculousness) as it is - it's tremendously appealing to see your formerly 50-hit point loser who used to do damage 8 to 12 points at a time dishing out triple digits of damage with every hit and sitting at 9,999 hit points or something. Sure, this appeal can be emulated in other ways, but with the D&D style hit points and damage, it's pretty obvious and clear. When you go back to the old neighborhood to take on those old level 1 goblins that used to bully you, you aren't just killing them in one blow - it's clear just how much of an overkill your casual sword swipes really are.
Now, I'm not saying that hit points are "the best system" for games. There ain't no such thing - it really depends on the game. But as silly and unrealistic as the system is, it has some very appealing virtues as well, and shouldn't simply be dismissed as pointlessly old-school.
Labels: Game Design, Roleplaying Games
- posted by The Rampant Coyote @ 6:15 AM (Permalink)
Comments:
Links to this post:
<< Home
This is one of those things -- like levels -- that would be really cool to see a revision of... but... for a lot of us, it ain't broke.
I wonder: Has anyone managed to put together a system using wounds (or something similar) to abstract hitpoints in a less debilitating way than "your arm's off?"
It'd be interesting to see this sort of thing coupled with, perhaps, a meter... it'd end up being basically hit points in the end, but perhaps it could add some depth to the same old system.
I wonder: Has anyone managed to put together a system using wounds (or something similar) to abstract hitpoints in a less debilitating way than "your arm's off?"
It'd be interesting to see this sort of thing coupled with, perhaps, a meter... it'd end up being basically hit points in the end, but perhaps it could add some depth to the same old system.
I like the TI-99/4a reference. :)
Hit points work fine... generally when you have systems that try and get away from them, they inevitably end up becoming super-complicated and usually end up with instant-kills happening because things just go terribly bad at the wrong moment. Classic Rolemaster springs to mind...
4th Edition D&D's power types of daily, encounter, and at-will actually work very well with a more dramatic/storytelling style of play. And the coup de grace action gives you the ability to instant-kill an opponent and avoid the HP grind-down.
Hit points work fine... generally when you have systems that try and get away from them, they inevitably end up becoming super-complicated and usually end up with instant-kills happening because things just go terribly bad at the wrong moment. Classic Rolemaster springs to mind...
4th Edition D&D's power types of daily, encounter, and at-will actually work very well with a more dramatic/storytelling style of play. And the coup de grace action gives you the ability to instant-kill an opponent and avoid the HP grind-down.
Another positive feature of hit points for computer games is that they discourage incessant quick saves and quick loads. If you make it through a battle with both legs crippled, it might be more "optimal" to try the battle again - exactly the sort of immersion-breaking behavior developers wish to avoid.
Often, the need to avert the downward spiral is so great that deliberately counterintuitive systems are introduced. Street Fighter IV's "rage meter," which grants power as your hit points decrease, keeps losing players thinking about their new rage options, instead of how badly they were beaten to get there.
Often, the need to avert the downward spiral is so great that deliberately counterintuitive systems are introduced. Street Fighter IV's "rage meter," which grants power as your hit points decrease, keeps losing players thinking about their new rage options, instead of how badly they were beaten to get there.
@KP's wondering:
XCom had a system involving HP as well as wounds. Wounds would debilitate the character, HP loss would not. Wounds would slowly drain HP, and each wound had a body part. What body part was hit would determine how ability is impaired. And impair would mean accuracy, strength, or reactions would be reduced, not "your arm is missing". It could also mean "You have 6 turns to complete the mission or retreat before dying of blood loss."
For another example of a game that uses nonstandard HP, see Dwarf Fortress. There is no HP meter, but you can look at a dwarf and see, for example: that the left third toe is missing, the right upper arm slightly wounded, and the spine permanently injured. Because the spine is injured, the dwarf will periodically and unpredictably pass out throughout the rest of its short, traumatic life.
The thing that these two games have in common is that you aren't playing as one character. When a rookie bites the dust there is some loss, but he has done a great service to humanity by showing the more valuable soldiers where the aliens are hiding. A dwarf may be humorously killed by a swarm of gibbons. In either case there are others to carry on with. It allows you to, instead of watching hit points, look at the head count. In a way it is going back to the roots and removing the abstraction hit points originated from.
I have noticed that for almost any discussion on games I will bring up one of these two games.
XCom had a system involving HP as well as wounds. Wounds would debilitate the character, HP loss would not. Wounds would slowly drain HP, and each wound had a body part. What body part was hit would determine how ability is impaired. And impair would mean accuracy, strength, or reactions would be reduced, not "your arm is missing". It could also mean "You have 6 turns to complete the mission or retreat before dying of blood loss."
For another example of a game that uses nonstandard HP, see Dwarf Fortress. There is no HP meter, but you can look at a dwarf and see, for example: that the left third toe is missing, the right upper arm slightly wounded, and the spine permanently injured. Because the spine is injured, the dwarf will periodically and unpredictably pass out throughout the rest of its short, traumatic life.
The thing that these two games have in common is that you aren't playing as one character. When a rookie bites the dust there is some loss, but he has done a great service to humanity by showing the more valuable soldiers where the aliens are hiding. A dwarf may be humorously killed by a swarm of gibbons. In either case there are others to carry on with. It allows you to, instead of watching hit points, look at the head count. In a way it is going back to the roots and removing the abstraction hit points originated from.
I have noticed that for almost any discussion on games I will bring up one of these two games.
Wow, when I saw TI-99/4A, I thought "Well I used an 82 in high school, I can beat that!" Then I looked it up... that thing was released when I was TWO MONTHS OLD.
@droid:
Thanks for the references. :)
Dwarf Fortress is a HUGE inspiration; what an amazing accomplishment that game is! I'd like to implement just a small fraction of the kind of terrain and history generation they did; even that would be pretty great.
As far as the wound systems... I do like the interesting ways they're used, but I guess what I'm getting at is a system of expressing hit points as something more visceral than a number, without adding poison-like drain effects or specific impairments.
Animating characters differently depending on how wounded they are might be a solution, if it were implemented well; however, for games that depend on pixel art, that's VERY expensive (particularly if you're aspiring to paper-doll-style character display).
@droid:
Thanks for the references. :)
Dwarf Fortress is a HUGE inspiration; what an amazing accomplishment that game is! I'd like to implement just a small fraction of the kind of terrain and history generation they did; even that would be pretty great.
As far as the wound systems... I do like the interesting ways they're used, but I guess what I'm getting at is a system of expressing hit points as something more visceral than a number, without adding poison-like drain effects or specific impairments.
Animating characters differently depending on how wounded they are might be a solution, if it were implemented well; however, for games that depend on pixel art, that's VERY expensive (particularly if you're aspiring to paper-doll-style character display).
Hit points are necessary, IMO, even (especially?) in computer games -- it's the only way to effectively quantify damage. Weapon X does Y damage, armor T mitigates U damage, character Zed is bleeding at a rate of R, etc. You can't get away from using hit points without things becoming completely arbitrary, i.e. without hit points, the GM is going to have to just make up a bunch of crap like, "Bob is hit in the arm with the dagger, severing an artery. He will bleed to death in 2 minutes." I guarantee if I know everything is completely pulled out of someone's *ahem*, I'm not playing that game for long! =P
But I think there does need to be something in addition to hit points -- Rolemaster's critical tables immediately came to mind here. (Although in a more positive way than it did for Adamantyr, I think...) =)
Regarding Rolemaster -- hit points always have been an essential part of RM; it's hardly a "system trying to get away from them." Yes, it has critical tables in addition to hit points. But these work in tandem with the hit points (rather well, I might add), providing "flavor" to battles. (Something mostly lacking in a lot of other systems.)
And while yes, the possibility of an "insta-kill" is there, I don't think it's an issue. For one, they are rare in my experience. Also, the possibility of incapacitation or death at any moment causes the players (at least the smart ones) to consider tactics, rather than just running straight in and attempting brute force. A definite plus IMO.
Also, for every moment where "things go terribly bad" for the PCs, there are usually 50 such occasions for the NPCs, since the PCs are generally better skilled and equipped, thus typically roll better results on the critical tables.
Finally, critical table results can actually become events that directly affect the story.
For example, perhaps the party is being pursued by a superior force and one PC is shot in the leg. Unable to keep up with the rest of the party, he elects to turn and fight, giving the rest of the party time to escape. Now the party has to make a choice: Return and attempt to recover their comrade, or make good on their escape. Here is a potentially major story event resulting from a simple result on a critical table...
But I think there does need to be something in addition to hit points -- Rolemaster's critical tables immediately came to mind here. (Although in a more positive way than it did for Adamantyr, I think...) =)
Regarding Rolemaster -- hit points always have been an essential part of RM; it's hardly a "system trying to get away from them." Yes, it has critical tables in addition to hit points. But these work in tandem with the hit points (rather well, I might add), providing "flavor" to battles. (Something mostly lacking in a lot of other systems.)
And while yes, the possibility of an "insta-kill" is there, I don't think it's an issue. For one, they are rare in my experience. Also, the possibility of incapacitation or death at any moment causes the players (at least the smart ones) to consider tactics, rather than just running straight in and attempting brute force. A definite plus IMO.
Also, for every moment where "things go terribly bad" for the PCs, there are usually 50 such occasions for the NPCs, since the PCs are generally better skilled and equipped, thus typically roll better results on the critical tables.
Finally, critical table results can actually become events that directly affect the story.
For example, perhaps the party is being pursued by a superior force and one PC is shot in the leg. Unable to keep up with the rest of the party, he elects to turn and fight, giving the rest of the party time to escape. Now the party has to make a choice: Return and attempt to recover their comrade, or make good on their escape. Here is a potentially major story event resulting from a simple result on a critical table...
The PnP game 'Alternity' has one of my favorite systems for handling damage. It was a modern/future setting from TSR before they were bought out by Wizards of the Coast.
Players had a set number of Mortal, Wound, and Stun points determined by their initial stats. Generally, these all added up to 15 or less. Different weapons did different types of damage - for instance, a pistol might do 1d6 wounds per shot, while a sniper rifle might do 1d4 mortal damage. All damage propagated done the line as well, for example, if a player got hit for 4 mortal points, they would also take 2 wound points and 1 stun point.
Armor in the game subtracted from damage rolls - a flak jacket might have 1d4 protection, meaning you would roll that die and subtract it from the damage you were receiving.
Losing all stun points resulted in falling unconscious, while losing all wound points put your character in a coma (if I remember right). Losing all mortal points of course resulted in death.
I loved the system because no matter how many levels a character gained, they always had the same amount of life as they did at first level. Your character got better at dodging and hitting the enemy, but a bullet to the head was fatal no matter what your skill level.
This encouraged a different play mechanic than traditional DnD; one more in line with a realistic setting. Roleplaying and skill use was paramount, and getting into a fight was always serious business. My gaming group and I loved the switch after years of playing DnD.
In this system, Coyote, using your example from your post, a direct CANNON blast to even a high level character would have proven instantly fatal. (Alternity also had a rather in-depth cover system.)
Anyone else ever play Alternity?
Players had a set number of Mortal, Wound, and Stun points determined by their initial stats. Generally, these all added up to 15 or less. Different weapons did different types of damage - for instance, a pistol might do 1d6 wounds per shot, while a sniper rifle might do 1d4 mortal damage. All damage propagated done the line as well, for example, if a player got hit for 4 mortal points, they would also take 2 wound points and 1 stun point.
Armor in the game subtracted from damage rolls - a flak jacket might have 1d4 protection, meaning you would roll that die and subtract it from the damage you were receiving.
Losing all stun points resulted in falling unconscious, while losing all wound points put your character in a coma (if I remember right). Losing all mortal points of course resulted in death.
I loved the system because no matter how many levels a character gained, they always had the same amount of life as they did at first level. Your character got better at dodging and hitting the enemy, but a bullet to the head was fatal no matter what your skill level.
This encouraged a different play mechanic than traditional DnD; one more in line with a realistic setting. Roleplaying and skill use was paramount, and getting into a fight was always serious business. My gaming group and I loved the switch after years of playing DnD.
In this system, Coyote, using your example from your post, a direct CANNON blast to even a high level character would have proven instantly fatal. (Alternity also had a rather in-depth cover system.)
Anyone else ever play Alternity?
# posted by 
: May 19, 2009 5:38 PM
: May 19, 2009 5:38 PM
You can duplicate some of the appeal in point #4 by eg. making low-level enemies explode into a mass of gibs (or a fine red mist) if hit with sufficiently-overpowered attacks. But it is hard to beat the numbers.
I like what L5R and 7th Sea do that way (pen & paper rpgs for those that do no know them).
In L5R, you have hit points determined by your will and constitution. But as you lose them, you get gradually weaker, until you fall to the ground. That way, yes, a lucky strike can give you a severe advantage early on, but katana fights were always bloody and quick anyway.
In 7th Sea, which is an epic-style swashbuckling game, you have 2 things: flesh wounds, and major wounds. When you are hit, it scores some flesh wounds. You then do a Constitution test equal to the total of the flesh wounds you have received so far. If you pass the test, nothing happens (but the next time you are hit, the test will be harder). If you fail, you take one (or more) major wounds, and all your flesh wounds disappear. Of many you can take before being weakened, or incapacitated, is determined by your Will.
That way, you can have a character who gets easily hurt, but who will still fight on (high will, low con, my character, which often survives musket bullets, but goes down against multiple thugs with fists), or one who can soak up loads of damage, but then goes down in a heap at the first grievous wound (low will, high con, a friend's character, which is the opposite)
I find it fun.
But, yeah, you need numbers to keep track of where you are standing in a fight :/. I don't really see how else to do it... It's just that you need something on top of hit points, IMHO
In L5R, you have hit points determined by your will and constitution. But as you lose them, you get gradually weaker, until you fall to the ground. That way, yes, a lucky strike can give you a severe advantage early on, but katana fights were always bloody and quick anyway.
In 7th Sea, which is an epic-style swashbuckling game, you have 2 things: flesh wounds, and major wounds. When you are hit, it scores some flesh wounds. You then do a Constitution test equal to the total of the flesh wounds you have received so far. If you pass the test, nothing happens (but the next time you are hit, the test will be harder). If you fail, you take one (or more) major wounds, and all your flesh wounds disappear. Of many you can take before being weakened, or incapacitated, is determined by your Will.
That way, you can have a character who gets easily hurt, but who will still fight on (high will, low con, my character, which often survives musket bullets, but goes down against multiple thugs with fists), or one who can soak up loads of damage, but then goes down in a heap at the first grievous wound (low will, high con, a friend's character, which is the opposite)
I find it fun.
But, yeah, you need numbers to keep track of where you are standing in a fight :/. I don't really see how else to do it... It's just that you need something on top of hit points, IMHO
Yeah, I remember Dwarf Fortress and Nethack has multiple bodyparts with damage...heh.
Deus Ex models damage to limbs much better - you can disable enemies arms to make them drop weapons, or legs to hamper movement, or head for aiming - and I don't think health could be upgraded (it was a steady 100 for each part) but upgrades lowered amounts of damage a bit.
Hmm, it's tough problem though. I don't mind HP too much, but it does get silly when, as your health goes up, enemy damage does anyway, making it a moot point except for silly "go to 1HP" attacks or "instant death" ones which suddenly kill you.
Possibly one thing is to not have the numbers increase much at all. For instance - Mount & Blade does well by having your HP increase from ~45 (or so, which every NPC will have too) up by 1 every time a strength point is added or a special skill taken - so, I'm on 65 or something at level 33! (15 strength points, 5 iron body points) - every point matters in high end combat, and a few hits you can still die (armour perhaps is more important for resisting damage there), it gives you an edge, but NOT an "invulnerability to arrows"!
Then again, the damage across weapons also is not inflated (bigger weapons do more damage, of course, but weigh more and discard the use of the very important shield) - upgraded weapons have a few extra damage there, or here. More is done on horseback charges, or carefully aimed headshots, that kind of thing...the main balance is that great armour is really great at stopping a higher percentage of damage (not like, so you can wade into the enemy, but compared to no or low armour you can have a decent few more hits taken), meaning the better weapons don't suddenly kill everything (or kill you) in one hit.
Certainly the kind of thing I like, where numbers are not inflated so much. The inflation always gets me (eg: if 100HP is enough for an entire FPS game, why can't lower numbers work for an RPG?)
I also recall seeing some RPG design articles on how to remove some of the more entrenched and not necessarily great elements - I think HP was one of them - but I can't find the links!
Deus Ex models damage to limbs much better - you can disable enemies arms to make them drop weapons, or legs to hamper movement, or head for aiming - and I don't think health could be upgraded (it was a steady 100 for each part) but upgrades lowered amounts of damage a bit.
Hmm, it's tough problem though. I don't mind HP too much, but it does get silly when, as your health goes up, enemy damage does anyway, making it a moot point except for silly "go to 1HP" attacks or "instant death" ones which suddenly kill you.
Possibly one thing is to not have the numbers increase much at all. For instance - Mount & Blade does well by having your HP increase from ~45 (or so, which every NPC will have too) up by 1 every time a strength point is added or a special skill taken - so, I'm on 65 or something at level 33! (15 strength points, 5 iron body points) - every point matters in high end combat, and a few hits you can still die (armour perhaps is more important for resisting damage there), it gives you an edge, but NOT an "invulnerability to arrows"!
Then again, the damage across weapons also is not inflated (bigger weapons do more damage, of course, but weigh more and discard the use of the very important shield) - upgraded weapons have a few extra damage there, or here. More is done on horseback charges, or carefully aimed headshots, that kind of thing...the main balance is that great armour is really great at stopping a higher percentage of damage (not like, so you can wade into the enemy, but compared to no or low armour you can have a decent few more hits taken), meaning the better weapons don't suddenly kill everything (or kill you) in one hit.
Certainly the kind of thing I like, where numbers are not inflated so much. The inflation always gets me (eg: if 100HP is enough for an entire FPS game, why can't lower numbers work for an RPG?)
I also recall seeing some RPG design articles on how to remove some of the more entrenched and not necessarily great elements - I think HP was one of them - but I can't find the links!
Games are artificial by definition, so I don't really care, as long as the system works. Hit points don't make much sense for individual characters, but they work. On the other hand, I'd have no problem with another system, either.
I like Droid's comments about X-Com and Dwarf Fortress. Yes, I bring up those two games in almost every discussion, too, it seems. As he points out, they are games with more than just four or five characters, so I suppose that they're not directly applicable.
And KP, the TI-99/4A was actually my SECOND computer, long after I was out of high school. My first was one I built from a kit. It used toggle switches for programming, and two LED lights for the "screen." :)
I like Droid's comments about X-Com and Dwarf Fortress. Yes, I bring up those two games in almost every discussion, too, it seems. As he points out, they are games with more than just four or five characters, so I suppose that they're not directly applicable.
And KP, the TI-99/4A was actually my SECOND computer, long after I was out of high school. My first was one I built from a kit. It used toggle switches for programming, and two LED lights for the "screen." :)
Heh - I was actually thinking of Adamantyr when I used the TI-99/4A example. I mean, it was a computer from a company more famous for their calculators, so I figgered it would work.
And now WCG has just proven himself more old-school than me... :)
I have played 7th Sea, but not Legend of the Five Rings or Alternity. And yes, I was also thinking of ICE's "Chart Law" when I was talking about extremely detailed combat resolution systems (though, like Hackmaster, it's more of a supplement to the HP system). Twilight: 2000 also had some pretty freaking detailed combat resolution, especially with the original system with heavy weapons versus vehicles. I guess the point was that heavy weapons and functional armored vehicles were supposed to be kinda rare, so they assumed you'd want to know exactly what happened to it - especially if you intended to salvage the vehicle later.
The original release of Cyberpunk also had a combat system that was based on actual ballistics data. With the release of the (more popular) updated edition, they repented. Turns out that while realism is a nice feature, fun combat resolution is much more important.
Many of the systems I mentioned above still had some kind of hit point system, but the hit points were broken down by body parts.
And now WCG has just proven himself more old-school than me... :)
I have played 7th Sea, but not Legend of the Five Rings or Alternity. And yes, I was also thinking of ICE's "Chart Law" when I was talking about extremely detailed combat resolution systems (though, like Hackmaster, it's more of a supplement to the HP system). Twilight: 2000 also had some pretty freaking detailed combat resolution, especially with the original system with heavy weapons versus vehicles. I guess the point was that heavy weapons and functional armored vehicles were supposed to be kinda rare, so they assumed you'd want to know exactly what happened to it - especially if you intended to salvage the vehicle later.
The original release of Cyberpunk also had a combat system that was based on actual ballistics data. With the release of the (more popular) updated edition, they repented. Turns out that while realism is a nice feature, fun combat resolution is much more important.
Many of the systems I mentioned above still had some kind of hit point system, but the hit points were broken down by body parts.
I personally like systems where hit points remain relatively static. In other words, when you create your character, your hit point total is determined by some formula based on your base statistics. This hit point total would then remain more or less the same throughout the lifetime of your character. The only times when it would change would be if one or more of the statistics used in generating the total increase. There could also be some type of skill that gives bonuses to hit point totals, like Athletics or something.
Of course, no one wants to play a character to high levels only to have them die relatively quickly, so some thought would have to go into the damage system -- how much damage is needed to kill the character -- it shouldn't be too easy to die. But, it also should not be possible to take a direct missile shot and live.
In my ideal system, I would take the base hit points and divide them rationally among head, arms, legs, and body. My combat system would take into consideration which part of the body was hit. A "damage threshold" would be in place to determine how much damage is needed to disable or destroy the part.
Instead of making a body part harder to hit (or perhaps, in addition to it), armor would instead serve to reduce or nullify the damage taken. So if you are wearing greaves with a damage threshold of 10 and are hit in the legs, the attack would have to do more than 10 hp of damage to affect you, and the difference would be subtracted from your hp.
Overall, I tend to not like systems where HP continues to grow as you gain levels.
Of course, no one wants to play a character to high levels only to have them die relatively quickly, so some thought would have to go into the damage system -- how much damage is needed to kill the character -- it shouldn't be too easy to die. But, it also should not be possible to take a direct missile shot and live.
In my ideal system, I would take the base hit points and divide them rationally among head, arms, legs, and body. My combat system would take into consideration which part of the body was hit. A "damage threshold" would be in place to determine how much damage is needed to disable or destroy the part.
Instead of making a body part harder to hit (or perhaps, in addition to it), armor would instead serve to reduce or nullify the damage taken. So if you are wearing greaves with a damage threshold of 10 and are hit in the legs, the attack would have to do more than 10 hp of damage to affect you, and the difference would be subtracted from your hp.
Overall, I tend to not like systems where HP continues to grow as you gain levels.
"Gary Gygax tried to explain that hit points were only an abstraction" "more a representation of his stamina being "worn down""
I hear this argument quite a lot, which is why I thought that renaming HP to Stamina might be a good idea. Then I got into problems with the fact that two characters attacking each other without actually causing any damage is a bit silly. Which is basically what's happening with HP, but it doesn't feel that way. I believe I've finally managed to solve the problem, but it definatly wasn't as simple as I thought it would be.
If anyone's interested in seeing my take, then ask me. I'm always interested in discussing rpg mechanics :D
I hear this argument quite a lot, which is why I thought that renaming HP to Stamina might be a good idea. Then I got into problems with the fact that two characters attacking each other without actually causing any damage is a bit silly. Which is basically what's happening with HP, but it doesn't feel that way. I believe I've finally managed to solve the problem, but it definatly wasn't as simple as I thought it would be.
If anyone's interested in seeing my take, then ask me. I'm always interested in discussing rpg mechanics :D
I have been playing with the same group of people since I was 13. In that time we have developed house rules, which oddly were incorperated in later D&D editions. In respects to HP we developed a system were HPs were broken into to parts one is "Body Points" and the other is "Luck Points". You still roll HPs normally but now depending on your stats a certain number of your HPs are body points. The rest are luck points. Body points are calculated by (STR+CON)/4. Therefore, lets say you have a 5th level fither with 50 HPs and he has a STR 18 and a CON 18. Therefore (18+18)/4 = 9. So 9 points of HPs are body points and 41 points are luck points.
In Combat luck ponts are deducted first and in essence you never really know if you have taken damage. In playing the system though you can get a feeling of when you are taking damage. When you deplete your luck points you now enter body points. At that point your character will see physical damge done to them.
IMO, it works really well and is a very good abstraction of combat and the damage you take.
In Combat luck ponts are deducted first and in essence you never really know if you have taken damage. In playing the system though you can get a feeling of when you are taking damage. When you deplete your luck points you now enter body points. At that point your character will see physical damge done to them.
IMO, it works really well and is a very good abstraction of combat and the damage you take.
A nice system was implemented in 'Betrayal at Krondor'.
First, they made a clear distinction between Health and Stamina.
Casting spell and taking damage would wear Stamina first, and then start chopping points from Health.
Basically, every abilities your character had was scaled by the ratio of his current Health vs. his max Health. Spell casting, lockpicking, sword handling, haggling, and every other action that your character could perform was scaled down when you didn't have full health.
A strategy that would sometimes make sense consisted of actually injuring one of your characters in order to cast a powerful spell late in a battle to give you the edge.
Another twist to the system was that you never regained 100% of your Health stat unless your character drank restorative vials, or slept in a bed (instead of sleeping on the road). This simulated quite nicely all the sores and aches that a person would accumulate by always being on the road, and preventing this person from functioning at peak performance.
First, they made a clear distinction between Health and Stamina.
Casting spell and taking damage would wear Stamina first, and then start chopping points from Health.
Basically, every abilities your character had was scaled by the ratio of his current Health vs. his max Health. Spell casting, lockpicking, sword handling, haggling, and every other action that your character could perform was scaled down when you didn't have full health.
A strategy that would sometimes make sense consisted of actually injuring one of your characters in order to cast a powerful spell late in a battle to give you the edge.
Another twist to the system was that you never regained 100% of your Health stat unless your character drank restorative vials, or slept in a bed (instead of sleeping on the road). This simulated quite nicely all the sores and aches that a person would accumulate by always being on the road, and preventing this person from functioning at peak performance.
You know, one type of new Hit Points scheme is the one adopted by the current run of FPS, especially the cover-run-shoot FPS, where you no longer have an abritrary number of HPs (like 100), but instead have a replinishing supply. This promotes the gamer to avoid running amuck, think more tactically, lessens the micromanaging of having medkits, and increasing the immersion into the game.
I don't know how this would work in RPGs, but I bet it would be an interesting conversion. Probably one that lends itself more to action RPGs, although the argument could be made that you could setup staggered goals for the adventurers to accomplish that would reward them full HPs.
I don't know how this would work in RPGs, but I bet it would be an interesting conversion. Probably one that lends itself more to action RPGs, although the argument could be made that you could setup staggered goals for the adventurers to accomplish that would reward them full HPs.
Yet another game that includes a wound system is Mabinogi (a Korean MMO). Oftentimes as you take damage, you receive a certain number of "wound points" which essentially reduce your maximum hp; if you have 100 hp and 10 wound points, you won't be able to heal yourself past 90 hp. It's possible to restore the wound points but it takes enough time that it's not practical during combat. Essentially, if you continue fighting and taking damage, it becomes easier and easier for you to die. It's at least somewhat novel, if nothing else.
Regarding Gygax's defense of the hit point system, I'm inclined to point out that many games separately model stamina (hack and slash games such as Diablo, etc.).
Anyway, I've always questioned why more (or at least some) FPS games didn't build on Deus Ex and simulate things in more detail; i.e. allowing you to aim for specific internal organs, even. This could allow you to quickly take down a target even with a torso shot (to the heart, if they're not wearing some sort of armor). Alternatively, you could cripple targets in order to interrogate them or somesuch.
Regarding Gygax's defense of the hit point system, I'm inclined to point out that many games separately model stamina (hack and slash games such as Diablo, etc.).
Anyway, I've always questioned why more (or at least some) FPS games didn't build on Deus Ex and simulate things in more detail; i.e. allowing you to aim for specific internal organs, even. This could allow you to quickly take down a target even with a torso shot (to the heart, if they're not wearing some sort of armor). Alternatively, you could cripple targets in order to interrogate them or somesuch.
# posted by : May 25, 2009 9:50 PM
: May 25, 2009 9:50 PM
I'm working on a homebrew system where there aren't any HP (or spell slots, or MP for that matter).
Each character, based on early stats, gets a number of 'willpower' dice to add to any rolls throughout a game day.
In combat, an attack is compared to the defender's 3d6 + Agility. If the attack is higher, then the weapon made physical contact. The defenders Strength score is then added to that (original 3d6 + Agility + Strength). If the attacker's roll is still higher, the defender (after the attack is resolved) will get a lasting injury in the form of only being able to roll 2d6 or most checks instead of the normal 3d6. Finally, the defender's Fortitude is added to that total (original 3d6 + Agility + Strength + Fortitude). If the attack STILL exceeds this amount, then the defender is mortally wounded and will die. If the defender is especially vulnerable to the means of attack, like a werewolf being hit with a silver weapon, then the second step (Strength) is not done.
What makes this interesting is the use of the 'willpower' dice. They can be used to fortify any check, social, combat, etc., but players tend to use them sparingly so they'll be available to fortify defensive rolls. There is a limit to how much willpower can be spent on any one roll, except rolls to directly avoid death.
This willpower serves as a cost to cast spells, HP, MP, Stamina and everything else, and is restored at the beginning of a new day as long as the player got adequate rest.
What you guys think?
Each character, based on early stats, gets a number of 'willpower' dice to add to any rolls throughout a game day.
In combat, an attack is compared to the defender's 3d6 + Agility. If the attack is higher, then the weapon made physical contact. The defenders Strength score is then added to that (original 3d6 + Agility + Strength). If the attacker's roll is still higher, the defender (after the attack is resolved) will get a lasting injury in the form of only being able to roll 2d6 or most checks instead of the normal 3d6. Finally, the defender's Fortitude is added to that total (original 3d6 + Agility + Strength + Fortitude). If the attack STILL exceeds this amount, then the defender is mortally wounded and will die. If the defender is especially vulnerable to the means of attack, like a werewolf being hit with a silver weapon, then the second step (Strength) is not done.
What makes this interesting is the use of the 'willpower' dice. They can be used to fortify any check, social, combat, etc., but players tend to use them sparingly so they'll be available to fortify defensive rolls. There is a limit to how much willpower can be spent on any one roll, except rolls to directly avoid death.
This willpower serves as a cost to cast spells, HP, MP, Stamina and everything else, and is restored at the beginning of a new day as long as the player got adequate rest.
What you guys think?
Take a look at Shadowrun for a nice balance between gameplay and realism.
Post a Comment
# posted by : August 25, 2009 1:28 PM
: August 25, 2009 1:28 PMLinks to this post:
<< Home
