Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

The Glancing Hit Problem

Storyfag

Perfidious Pole
Patron
Joined
Feb 17, 2011
Messages
16,128
Location
Stealth Orbital Nuke Control Centre
Inspired by the discussion that happened here, I had a sublime thought. What would you, my esteemed Codexians, think of this system:

All characters have "stamina pools".

Stamina is used for special attacks and depleted by enemy attacks* as the character gets tired.
*all attacks, not the ones that successfuly connect!

Various special attacks use up various amounts of stamina, various parries/dodges/blocks use up various amounts of stamina the game selects them automatically, depending on situation and character and attacker skills.

The chance of an enemy attack successfuly connecting# is 100% - %of remaining stamina.
# despite the use of parries/dodges/blocks

Once an enemy attack successfuly connects the character: a) dies, b) is crippled and will die in the enemy's next attack, c) is crippled and cannot attack.


Thoughts?
 
Joined
Dec 23, 2010
Messages
476
Project: Eternity
Workshop, man.

Secondly: I'm not sure why people feel compelled to try and make abstract representations of life/power more 'realistic.' I'm perfectly fine with a simple hit-point system. Additionally, this sounds too much like the game just plays cutscenes for you and calls it a "dodge." What about this system encourages open-ended RPG elements - do you get to pick your dodges, and how much stamina they cost, through stats?
Secondly, this sort of disbalances things in favor of high-attack-concentration classes. Because all attacks decrease enemy stamina, and there will always be a chance to hit and apparently do *massive damage*, anyone that can chain a series of fast hits in one run will be at a marked advantage. Even if you do four attacks that decrease enemy stamina by 1%, you'd still have four (three?) chances to "cripple or kill" the enemy, each at a slightly higher percentage chance. And that's not counting the stamina used up by a target's parry/dodge/block.
Unless I completely misunderstand your system, which I apologize for if I do.
 

Gord

Arcane
Joined
Feb 16, 2011
Messages
7,049
The old realism vs fun problem.

Make it too realistic and it will suck simply because it's no fun anymore. If there's a good chance that one hit will kill or severly cripple you, a short streak of bad luck will end the game.

Too high hitpoints, however give you something akin to an "armor out of hitpoints". Until you loose all, or most of them, which could well take dozens of hits, there's no disadvantage to your char.

IIRC, GURPS and WoD are using systems where you have relatively few hitpoints, or rather degrees of injury, and as you get wounded you get an increasingly higher malus on stats and abilities.
At least Vampires in WoD could soak damage, preventing them from getting wounded, but I'm not sure how that applied to mortals or GURPS (been a while since I played/read the manuals).
 

Storyfag

Perfidious Pole
Patron
Joined
Feb 17, 2011
Messages
16,128
Location
Stealth Orbital Nuke Control Centre
No, you understand the system correctly. Thanks for pointing out some holes. That is why I posted it here.

Obviously a successful parry/dodge/block should prevent a blow from connecting, and the option to pick a parry/dodge/block could be achieved by a) making the system turn-based or b) having a simple toggle to "parry when attacked" for RTWP.

Now, weak attacks would be offset by armour, therefore making them less likely to cripple/kill the target. Heavy attacks would be better at going through armour, but would ideally require some weak attacks beforehand, to tire the defendant.
 
Joined
Nov 8, 2007
Messages
6,207
Location
The island of misfit mascots
Storyfag said:
No, you understand the system correctly. Thanks for pointing out some holes. That is why I posted it here.

Obviously a successful parry/dodge/block should prevent a blow from connecting, and the option to pick a parry/dodge/block could be achieved by a) making the system turn-based or b) having a simple toggle to "parry when attacked" for RTWP.

Now, weak attacks would be offset by armour, therefore making them less likely to cripple/kill the target. Heavy attacks would be better at going through armour, but would ideally require some weak attacks beforehand, to tire the defendant.

I think on that last point, requiring weak attacks first to tire the defendant, then switching to heavy, you make the same mistake again of trying to make an abstracted model more realistic. It isn't just a fun v realism tradeoff (though that is important too), it's that an abstracted model isn't supposed to equate to the actual combat it is representing - hp are an abstraction of fatigue, luck, morale, injury all put together. When you hit an enemy 6 times doing 60 damage in total, that doesn't mean that the character is literally stabbing the enemy 6 times before the enemy dies. The character is only making contact once, killing the enemy with that single stab, but the 6 'hits' are way of abstracting the extent to which the fight goes in the character's favour.

Now the reason why it doesn't work as a mechanic is that it isn't really giving the player any genuine choice. Having to use some weak attacks to 'tire' the defendant (again, it doesn't mean the defendant is literally being tired anyway) and then switching to heavy, means that at any one point in time there is one, and only one, optimum attack. Maybe there's a small spot in the middle where it might not be clear whether to use weak or heavy, but really it's no different to only having one attack - all you're doing is making the player swap buttons half way through. By having a clear optimum option (must use weak attacks, ok status says tired now, time to press the other button instead) you create the same effect as having no choices at all.

If you're going to use a weak/heavy system, then rather than thinking realism (because if you're thinking realism, you're already in trouble when your character can still stand after being stabbed with a fucking sword - hell, even a 'glancing' cut with a sabre is going to put you in hospital), make sure the system is actually adding a tactical component. Have the heavy blows more risky but with more damage - that way the player can try to work out whether the odds clearly favour him (in which case low-risk light blows are best) or whether he is better off taking a risk and hoping for a pay-off. Or better, have different armour and weapon types reward different builds and different strategies. So you might have a strategy of pumping strength into a character, using heavy armour and a big blunt weapon, with heavy attacks being optimal, whereas a build with high dex and a dagger might get an action point bonus that makes light attacks really effective through the sheer number of attacks per round. That still only leaves one 'optimum' choice for each combat, but it shifts the decision-making from the tactical (immediate combat) to the strategic (character builds).

If you want the decision-making to be at the tactical/combat end, rather than the strategic/character-build end, then you need a much greater degree of complexity and most likely a party-based system.
 

Norfleet

Moderator
Joined
Jun 3, 2005
Messages
12,250
Azrael the cat said:
When you hit an enemy 6 times doing 60 damage in total, that doesn't mean that the character is literally stabbing the enemy 6 times before the enemy dies. The character is only making contact once, killing the enemy with that single stab, but the 6 'hits' are way of abstracting the extent to which the fight goes in the character's favour.
You say this, but that is not the action we're seeing on screen. On SCREEN, we're seeing you whacking that guy with a big axe while he bleeds like a stuck pig and arrows stick out of him like some kind of pincushion. Abstractions only work when you can't actually see them. Abstractions are a tabletop convention that function in the absence of pesky things like GRAPHICS and COMPUTING POWER, because no one wants to spend 3 hours resolving the outcome of a single attack.

Modern computers don't have these problems. There is no reason to stick to meatbag PnP mechanics in a video game, especially when they look downright ridiculous on screen. Unless you're making a low-rent game without the PRETTY GRAPHICS that make this look ridiculous.
 

Gord

Arcane
Joined
Feb 16, 2011
Messages
7,049
Azrael the cat said:
hell, even a 'glancing' cut with a sabre is going to put you in hospital

One shouldn't underestimate human resilience, however.
Especially in a fight, with a weekly production of adrenaline rushing through the body, it can potentially stand quite a lot.
Not that you aren't going to need a doctor afterwards, however. If you survive.
 

Canus

Savant
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
647
Gord said:
Azrael the cat said:
hell, even a 'glancing' cut with a sabre is going to put you in hospital

One shouldn't underestimate human resilience, however.
Especially in a fight, with a weekly production of adrenaline rushing through the body, it can potentially stand quite a lot.
Not that you aren't going to need a doctor afterwards, however. If you survive.

I remember reading a report on a 18th century duel in which one individual was stabbed through the heart and fell to his knees. His opponent walked away at which point the affected individual broke off the sword going through his chest and ran at his opponent. Stabbed him 27 times with his own broken sword and tore out a chunk of his throat with his teeth. The opponent died on the field but the man who was stabbed in the heart was apparently fine after medical intervention.
 
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
7,428
Location
Villainville
MCA
Quoted something relevant from this thread in Mangoose's thread just the other day:

(1) Pscyhological aspects and challenges involve the urges one could resist or submit to perform premature moves, the ability to maintain one's attention span and the ability to maintain initiative. For example, imagine an opponent who is trying your patience by stalling and feinting or keeping the initiative (that is, having you submit to his domination by making you wait for him to attack and to give you a reason to respond) while not using it and waiting for you to lose your patience and act prematurely, opening yourself to master strikes, ie. one hit one kill deals if you don't counterattack properly, with very little room to break off and retreat if you don't know how to respond. At the end of each turn and based your actions or inaction, you get cumulative increases (or decreases) to a few derived stats dealing with these.

...

(3) Commitment is how much effort and power you dedicate to any single action, and how much of a strain they become on your status. Without fully committing, you could be baiting or feinting the opponent to think you are giving an opening, you could be stalling to try his patience, you could be searching to get a sense of what your opponent might be thinking through his responses or, you could just be unsure of what to do (this last part, "being unsure of what to do" has an actual place in the system based on "Indes"). Commitment also dictates how easy and safe it is to change from your course of movement (a matter of momentum, when applied to real life) and the level of fatigue involved.

That probably sounds complicated but its application in the system is based on very simple and straightforward checks, between your Strength and your Endurance in the case of fatigue for instance: You assign as many Strength points as you have and wish into your actions and when the Strength you commit into your action exceeds your Endurance, it's a cumulative increase on your fatigue but can "cool off" if you refrain from straining yourself again for the next couple moves. When your fatigue exceeds your Endurance (possibly by performing a series of highly or fully committed attacks without breaks), the fatigue increase becomes permanent. When your fatigue permanently reaches or exceeds your Endurance, you become exhausted - but not collapsed... yet).

(4) Initiative is a little more than physically being in the offence or defence. One can hold the initiative while letting the opponent act. I explained this a little in the example above. When holding the initiative, you are in the dominant position, leaving the opponent in an uncertain state of mind, making guesses and trying to figure out how to win the initiative back from you.
...

For instance, every character has an Impulse pool that fills up at the end of every turn without a real engagement and further up when subjected to weakly performed single engage-and-breakoff attacks (which don't count as a real engagement) intended to probe or harrass. It's derived from a Will Power attribute (in the same league as Strength and Endurance) and experience. Larger the pool, more patience and self-controlling a combatant is.

...

When an encounter drags on in uncertainty, several turns passing without a real engagement and with lots of probing and harassing, these pools fill up, obviously. When you have a full pool, you must roll against the impulse at the end of every turn to stay focused and to refrain from making premature, "impulse" attacks. At that point, your mental fatigue increases whether you pass or fail an impulse roll at the end of a turn, bringing penalties to observation and Indes. Thus, you need to stay sharp. If you have the initiative, this is softened up a little bit (one of the reasons you'll want to have the initiative).
 

Storyfag

Perfidious Pole
Patron
Joined
Feb 17, 2011
Messages
16,128
Location
Stealth Orbital Nuke Control Centre
Norfleet said:
Azrael the cat said:
When you hit an enemy 6 times doing 60 damage in total, that doesn't mean that the character is literally stabbing the enemy 6 times before the enemy dies. The character is only making contact once, killing the enemy with that single stab, but the 6 'hits' are way of abstracting the extent to which the fight goes in the character's favour.
You say this, but that is not the action we're seeing on screen. On SCREEN, we're seeing you whacking that guy with a big axe while he bleeds like a stuck pig and arrows stick out of him like some kind of pincushion. Abstractions only work when you can't actually see them. Abstractions are a tabletop convention that function in the absence of pesky things like GRAPHICS and COMPUTING POWER, because no one wants to spend 3 hours resolving the outcome of a single attack.

Modern computers don't have these problems. There is no reason to stick to meatbag PnP mechanics in a video game, especially when they look downright ridiculous on screen. Unless you're making a low-rent game without the PRETTY GRAPHICS that make this look ridiculous.

Yep, that's *exactly* the problem I'd like to remedy.
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2010
Messages
3,524
Storyfag said:
Norfleet said:
Azrael the cat said:
When you hit an enemy 6 times doing 60 damage in total, that doesn't mean that the character is literally stabbing the enemy 6 times before the enemy dies. The character is only making contact once, killing the enemy with that single stab, but the 6 'hits' are way of abstracting the extent to which the fight goes in the character's favour.
You say this, but that is not the action we're seeing on screen. On SCREEN, we're seeing you whacking that guy with a big axe while he bleeds like a stuck pig and arrows stick out of him like some kind of pincushion. Abstractions only work when you can't actually see them. Abstractions are a tabletop convention that function in the absence of pesky things like GRAPHICS and COMPUTING POWER, because no one wants to spend 3 hours resolving the outcome of a single attack.

Modern computers don't have these problems. There is no reason to stick to meatbag PnP mechanics in a video game, especially when they look downright ridiculous on screen. Unless you're making a low-rent game without the PRETTY GRAPHICS that make this look ridiculous.

Yep, that's *exactly* the problem I'd like to remedy.
Which your idea doesn't remedy, 'Fag.

If you replace "stamina" with "hit points" in your idea, the results aren't that much different to a hit point system - or other systems previously used (isn't it identical to how blood mages work in DA?) -, meaning your idea isn't as much about the mechanical function as it is about the ideology of stamina, realism and such.

As others have said, if you try to link failure more closely to a random roll (the one successful hit, cripple/death) - especially a high probability one - you basically tear the system down to one that leaves you unsatisfied with the end result regardless of its aspirations to realism. In an RPG you need to find ways to better link the successes of the player to the decisions he has made in building his character, whether realistic or abstract, not leaving it in the air to a random roll that makes those decisions mostly irrelevant.
 
In My Safe Space
Joined
Dec 11, 2009
Messages
21,899
Codex 2012
Yeah, it was done pretty well there.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom