HP-less RPG combat

[Claw]

So why create a complex simulation of the body, when only one blow matters?

Sounds like a good reason to have a complex simulation; how else do you want to decide what effect a blow has? Random chance? Or maybe just a skill check? A skill of 90 equals a 90% chance of a killing blow? That doesn't sound terribly fun.

Admittedly I haven't read the entire thread and don't know how complex we're talking.

If I understand people here correctly, I think it's kind of a mixing of sentiments. One one hand, people feel that RPG combat is generally tiresome. On the other hand, they feel that RPG combat systems are too simplistic (HP).

Mixed sentiment? The combat systems are too simplistic, and thus tiresome. I see no mixed sentiments.

The assumption is then made that by increasing the complexity of a combat system (goodbye HP), the combat will become less tiresome.

No, the assumption is made that by changing the combat mechanics, it will become less tiresome. And since the core mechanic is reduing HP to zero, most people consider changing this mechanic, and that just happens to produce more complex results.

And then of course there's the fallacy that more complex always means more fun.

I sometimes get the impression some people believe that simpler always means more fun, which isn't true either.
The question is what makes a game mechanic interesting. Being repetitive is generally regarded as less fun, and simple often leads to repetitiveness.
For instance, I read a game review recently about how a fighting game is basically ripping off another - I don't know either, really - but basically the gist was that the rip-off wasn't fun because unlike the original you just had to press the same button all the time. How do you make that more fun if not by making it more complex?

 

[Smarts]

For instance, I read a game review recently about how a fighting game is basically ripping off another - I don't know either, really - but basically the gist was that the rip-off wasn't fun because unlike the original you just had to press the same button all the time. How do you make that more fun if not by making it more complex?

Well, then, the problem is simple; how do you make RPG combat more complex, without turning it into a fighting game?

 

[zenbitz]

Part One: Simulation or Story?
http://www.rpg.net/oracle/essays/itoolkit1.html

By the way, these articles (all 5) are quite interesting to get the perspective of a pure "storytelling" roleplayer. He's absolutely right about most RPG game systems being basically tactical wargames. He mentions Champions and GURPS specifically - these were always my favorite RPGs because they were _good_ tactical war games. Most RPGs are _terrible_ war games (and I also play - or used to play - hex-and-chit wargames (they have also evolved over 40 years from "Tactics1".

One thing that is germaine is that a cRPG almost always has a tactical combat system at it's core. Other wise, you are just playing "Fed Ex", right? (I think even Theif falls into this category).

So now the question of how to make your hybrid roleplay/tactical wargame intersting, and that is where the whole hit point discussion comes in. Obviously, having a linear metric of "health" can be useful, but it is clearly not the only way to run things.

I don't buy the "I have 10th level and 120 HPs which represents my ability to avoid damage in combat" - because the same HPs are (usually) used for falls, explosions, poison, etc. If you want them to represent fatigue points, then call them fatigue points.

 

[Serpentine Cougar]

Well, then, the problem is simple; how do you make RPG combat more complex, without turning it into a fighting game?

Just for the sake of argument, what would be wrong with a cRPG that uses a fighting game-style combat system?

 

[Smarts]

Well, then, the problem is simple; how do you make RPG combat more complex, without turning it into a fighting game?

Just for the sake of argument, what would be wrong with a cRPG that uses a fighting game-style combat system?

Good question. Personally - it may be just me - I always felt the idea of the character's stats and skills coupled with the player's tactics and choices is what marked the RPG protagonist as a different kind of creature to the fighting game/FPS protagonist. Rather than the player's reactions and attacks being important, the character handles that, just as he or she handles being charismatic, jumping large gaps, dechipering old texts and so on. I felt that's part of what made RPG adventures a more cerebral experience than a beat-em-up, and part of why I like them. There are some games that straddle the line; games like Mass Effect and the Elder Scrolls series, which have the player in control of each shot/sword swing, but determine force and precision with character skills... That's a curious compromise, and opinion seems divided on those titles. Would it work to go even further?

Luckily, a similar game already exists, and it's BioWare's Jade Empire, so formulating an answer shouldn't be too difficult for anyone who's played that. What did people think of Jade Empire's combat system, and would it work in a hp-less game?

 

[Castanova]

Mixed sentiment? The combat systems are too simplistic, and thus tiresome. I see no mixed sentiments.

No, I'm referring to the assumption that a standard HP system = simple combat. My point is that complexity in a combat system that contributes to it being fun lies in the tactical considerations, not in the method of keeping score.

No, the assumption is made that by changing the combat mechanics, it will become less tiresome. And since the core mechanic is reduing HP to zero, most people consider changing this mechanic, and that just happens to produce more complex results.

More complex results, yes, but not necessarily more interesting or more fun. If your only tactical option is "Hit Enemy" then localized damage is more of a time-waster than anything. It wouldn't take any extra brainpower to figure out how to beat enemies and now I have to waste extra time making a superficial choice between body parts.

The question is what makes a game mechanic interesting. Being repetitive is generally regarded as less fun, and simple often leads to repetitiveness.

Simple tactical mechanics are repetitive, yes. But that's not what this thread is talking about. In hockey, each goal moves your score up by 1 point. Does a "simple" scoring system mean that hockey involves no tactics or thought? Is hockey or any other sport no fun to play?

 

[zenbitz]

I always felt the idea of the character's stats and skills coupled with the player's tactics and choices is what marked the RPG protagonist as a different kind of creature to the fighting game/FPS protagonist.

Funny that people seldom complain when they used their players' brain to figure out puzzles that their character probably wouldn't be able to solve.

 

[Davaris]

So why create a complex simulation of the body, when only one blow matters?

Sounds like a good reason to have a complex simulation; how else do you want to decide what effect a blow has? Random chance? Or maybe just a skill check? A skill of 90 equals a 90% chance of a killing blow? That doesn't sound terribly fun.

Admittedly I haven't read the entire thread and don't know how complex we're talking.

Check it out. Its an interesting read and it will put everything in context.

To answer your question one way, a computer simulation, no how complex, is not a simulation of reality. All it is, is an implementation of rules a designer has created and no matter how long they work on it, it will never represent reality.

For instance, how far should you go before you consider a simulation is a realistic representation of real world combat? Do you simulate someone accidentally slipping over due to slippery floors, pebbles on the floor, twisted ankles, ripped joints, or simply being pushed? Do you simulate a fighter's sweaty hand due to his fear, causing his hand to slip on his war hammer? Would he drop the hammer in that case, or simply mistime his attack? Do you simulate feeling tired or weak on the day of battle, for no reason other than your character is having a bad day? How about getting sand kicked in your face, or a stray eyelash? I could go on with examples like this forever.

To get to my point, no matter how long you work on a computer program, you can't simulate reality, so why make something more complex than it needs to be? After all you are creating a game, so why not focus on the rules that make it fun to play?

>I sometimes get the impression some people believe that simpler always means more fun, which isn't true either.

This brings up another argument against complexity in combat, in that if taken too far it can turn into a tedious mini game like those found in Fallout 3.

In F3, you create a character with great lock picking skills, but the player must pick the lock, not the character the player created. The same goes with F3's computer hacking game in that the player breaks into the computer, not the character.

The same could be said for a complex combat simulator, where every move the player makes matters (how you move your fingers, wrist, lower arm, upper arm, torso, etc). Who is doing the fighting in that kind of game? Is it me, or my character? If it is me, then am I playing a role playing game, or am I playing a combat simulator?

I can see how people could argue against my point - in combat the player is the tactician, not their character. My answer to that is tactics are fun, if they are not overly complex.

I think this thread started because people are sick of the grind in combat and want it to be more realistic, so they feel tension or risk when they fight and enjoy their game more. My answer to that is developers can achieve all of those things with fun rules, and if they work hard on the plot and characters in their games.

 

[Smarts]

Funny that people seldom complain when they used their players' brain to figure out puzzles that their character probably wouldn't be able to solve.

The degree to which a player metagames has always been down to the player, in any roleplaying game.

 

[zenbitz]

Davaris - you are either confusing detail with realism, or else argueing against someone else who is.

One can be realistic and fun and simple. One can be complex and totally unrealistic. Simulating reality doesn't mean solving quantum mechanical equations for each particle in the universe - it means abstracting out what is unimnportant and/or uninteresting.

Having hit locations (regardless of whether or not they have HPs) is more complex than not. It's also more realistic. It _can_ also be more fun. As for "why worry about this because only 1 shot takes you down" - well, I might have to read that 1962 report, but I'd venture to guess whether or not the gunshot wound took you down or not depends a great deal on where it hit you. Like for sure, we can guess that 99% of all head shots take you out of the fight, while a thigh or arm shot might be just a flesh wound.

In anycase, I would reserve judgement on what is fun until someone actually makes the game of it and you can say "not fun for me".

 

[Davaris]

>well, I might have to read that 1962 report, but I'd venture to guess whether or not the gunshot wound took you down or not depends a great deal on where it hit you. Like for sure, we can guess that 99% of all head shots take you out of the fight, while a thigh or arm shot might be just a flesh wound.

How about you go try that out and get back to me? I don't mean in the head, that would be just silly. Ask a friend to shoot you in the arm and see if you still feel like fighting. I'm joking of course. Don't sue me if you go ahead and do it.


As for what I was saying about simulations I could have said it in a simpler way. Simulations are good at taking lots of simple things and seeing what happens when they interact. Simulations are not accurate on single complex objects, like a human body - so you can go ahead and spend years making super complicated combat systems for your game, but those rules won't say anything about combat in the real world.

>In anycase, I would reserve judgement on what is fun until someone actually makes the game of it and you can say "not fun for me".

Fun is what its all about.

 

[zenbitz]

Is this the point in the conversation where dig up ancedotal links of medal of honor winners who blow up enemy pillboxes riddled with bullets? (Of course they usually die anyway).

Also - the quote from the article did not say that "if you get shot you are out of the fight" it said _3_ things happened.
a) You are dead (or soon dead)
b) You are in shock
c) YOU KEEP GOING AS IF NOTHING HAD HAPPENED.

So, the question is, what is the ratio of a/b/c? I actually think this would be a good addition to a "tough" RPG.

 

[Davaris]

Some things I forgot to mention with the getting hit in the arms or legs: If a bullet strikes bone it will shatter and most people will faint or go into shock from that. If it hits a major artery in your thigh, you can bleed out in seconds. Also perfectly healthy people will respond differently to blood loss. Some can lose a pint and it will not affect them, while others will always white out due to the decrease of blood pressure.

>Is this the point in the conversation where dig up ancedotal links of medal of honor winners who blow up enemy pillboxes riddled with bullets? (Of course they usually die anyway).

True.

>So, the question is, what is the ratio of a/b/c? I actually think this would be a good addition to a "tough" RPG.

We'd have to track down that report.

It could also be just as meaningful if you made up the %s, as the figures may change depending on the military technology that is being used. Also those stats would be more accurate in a battle simulation with 10s of thousands of "soldiers", rather than in a fantasy game with 5 or 6 heroic characters.

EDIT:

So why create a complex simulation of the body, when only one blow matters?

Sounds like a good reason to have a complex simulation; how else do you want to decide what effect a blow has? Random chance? Or maybe just a skill check? A skill of 90 equals a 90% chance of a killing blow? That doesn't sound terribly fun.

I'm not arguing for my system, I am arguing against unnecessary complexity.

BTW If anyone is interested in designing their own rules they should read this book.

Design Patterns of Successful Role-Playing Games by John Kirk
http://legendaryquest.netfirms.com/books/Patterns.zip

It treats RPG rules like design patterns in computer programming, in that you pick out the patterns or rules you like and then mix and match them to create an original set of rules for your game.

 

[zenbitz]

Thanks for the link, I'll read it. The 1962 report is not on line that I can tell... but they have it in the library downstairs from me. I somehow doubt 1962 was the pinnacle of ballistics research, I'm sure more can be learned by googling around (google scholar as well).

If you find links you can't read, I work for Stanford - we have subscriptions to about everything.

 

[Davaris]

Thanks for the link, I'll read it.

You're welcome.

The 1962 report is not on line that I can tell... but they have it in the library downstairs from me. I somehow doubt 1962 was the pinnacle of ballistics research, I'm sure more can be learned by googling around (google scholar as well).

If you find links you can't read, I work for Stanford - we have subscriptions to about everything.

Thanks for that and please let us know what you think of that report.

 

[mondblut]

Funny that people seldom complain when they used their players' brain to figure out puzzles that their character probably wouldn't be able to solve.

I'd take int checks over puzzlesolving any day.

But I guess most of the target auditory in the days of yore couldn't resist flipping levers and pushing boulders on pressure plates

 

[Lord Rocket]

I'd take int checks over puzzlesolving any day.

Essentially, then, you hate participating. I know of a game you'd love. All you have to do is press the X button on your controller a whole bunch.

On topic again, are there any genuinely convincing arguments that realism is really-and-truly a design goal for any sort of game (except for strict simulations like, say, Falcon 4.0)? Because real life rewards power gaming and using the same tactics every single time (see: SWAT teams. Kick in door, throw in grenade, shout a lot, arrest perps, rinse, repeat. Oh, and they only take the best people for doing that sort of thing. Buncha munchkins are using exploits, man). Or is boring. Battles can go on for hours in real life, with people staying in one place and firing at half-seen forms that might, might, have been an enemy's head. Or is over in a second, because everyone all but walked into each other and the guy who got initiative had an AK and didn't really have to bother aiming.
Is any of that a game you guys want to play? Maybe you said yes, I don't know, but realism like that seems much better suited to higher-level strategy games, because personally I don't want to have to deal with piddling, meandering crap like that, and nor do I particularly want to reload because I wasn't the guy in the last example. Inevitably my last save would have been several hours ago.

Abstraction is definitely the best way to go in these matters. More abstracted games are rarely so lethal or random that you're locked into a single course of action - a la the SWAT team - or compelled to create a certain sort of character - the super fast guy with an AK. And an elegant system can, in fact, approximate a lot of the specific things you guys were talking about earlier. Consider HP for a moment. A damage roll has a number of potential results. Get a low result, and, well, your sweaty palms made your grip falter. High result, nice solid strike right on the top of the bonce. This is purely narrative, and I'm ignoring all the issues there are with D&D style HP, but the player won't care if it's kept under the hood, and besides the result will be similar to a more complex system (at least, at low levels) without the greater development time and potential for bugs that the extra code will bring. Low HP approximates being in a disadvantageous position in combat almost as well as a 'wound track' or death spiral, despite the painfully obvious flaws.

Honestly, you could base a brutally simplistic system on Hnafatafl and terrain modifiers* which would have more tactical rigour than a strictly realistic simulation. And isn't that what we're aiming for, with this discussion? Meaningful decisions on the part of the player?

* Off the top of my head - characters have two stats, combat and movement rate, terrain has X-Y-Z coordinates and maybe a simple terrain type modifier. In single combat, the character with the higher stat will win, in a predetermined number of rounds depending on the difference between the stats and the terrain factors (for this to work, running away will not be an option). Flanking a guy with two characters will adjust the combat further in their favour, while putting a guy on opposite sides of an opponent - essentially backstabbing him - will drop them in one round. So essentially positioning will be very important - your men's movement will be modified depending on the terrain they're on, so essentially each side will be trying to isolate their opponents, gain higher ground (for bonuses), close off areas which allow speedy transit, and prevent the enemy from coming to the aid of their losing allies. There, it's deterministic and very abstract but if I saw something similar to it in a game I would evangelise it over Fallout-style 'stand and hope for a critical' combat no matter how bad the execution was.

 

[mondblut]

I'd take int checks over puzzlesolving any day.

Essentially, then, you hate participating.

No, I hate retarded and senseless puzzles which properly belong to casual games. Flip 4 switches until you find a right combination to open a door? Move stone blocks upon pressure plates to cover a pit? Solve a lame crossword? Yeah, right. What the hell this bullshit has to do with RPGs?

 

[zenbitz]

On topic again, are there any genuinely convincing arguments that realism is really-and-truly a design goal for any sort of game (except for strict simulations like, say, Falcon 4.0)? Because real life rewards power gaming and using the same tactics every single time (see: SWAT teams. Kick in door, throw in grenade, shout a lot, arrest perps, rinse, repeat.

The point is not that abstraction is bad and simulation is good. Although I can imagine several types of games that "realistic" combat was a cool part of.

Here's an example - what about a game where you were an ancient gladiator - wouuldn't it be cool to have some interesting system of fighting HTH? Better than "Click attack. Do 14 damage. Click attack do 12 damage. Click attack. Crit for 44 damage. Opponent dies"

And what game has an abstract combat system that is not just "do best move sequence X" every single time? The reason these games get tedious is not the level of detail - but rather the obvious predictable responses of the enemies. (Now I am off topic).

 

[zenbitz]

Honestly, you could base a brutally simplistic system on Hnafatafl and terrain modifiers* which would have more tactical rigour than a strictly realistic simulation. And isn't that what we're aiming for, with this discussion? Meaningful decisions on the part of the player?

* Off the top of my head - characters have two stats, combat and movement rate, terrain has X-Y-Z coordinates and maybe a simple terrain type modifier. In single combat, the character with the higher stat will win, in a predetermined number of rounds depending on the difference between the stats and the terrain factors (for this to work, running away will not be an option). Flanking a guy with two characters will adjust the combat further in their favour, while putting a guy on opposite sides of an opponent - essentially backstabbing him - will drop them in one round. So essentially positioning will be very important - your men's movement will be modified depending on the terrain they're on, so essentially each side will be trying to isolate their opponents, gain higher ground (for bonuses), close off areas which allow speedy transit, and prevent the enemy from coming to the aid of their losing allies. There, it's deterministic and very abstract but if I saw something similar to it in a game I would evangelise it over Fallout-style 'stand and hope for a critical' combat no matter how bad the execution was.Honestly, you could base a brutally simplistic system on Hnafatafl and terrain modifiers* which would have more tactical rigour than a strictly realistic simulation. And isn't that what we're aiming for, with this discussion? Meaningful decisions on the part of the player?

* Off the top of my head - characters have two stats, combat and movement rate, terrain has X-Y-Z coordinates and maybe a simple terrain type modifier. In single combat, the character with the higher stat will win, in a predetermined number of rounds depending on the difference between the stats and the terrain factors (for this to work, running away will not be an option). Flanking a guy with two characters will adjust the combat further in their favour, while putting a guy on opposite sides of an opponent - essentially backstabbing him - will drop them in one round. So essentially positioning will be very important - your men's movement will be modified depending on the terrain they're on, so essentially each side will be trying to isolate their opponents, gain higher ground (for bonuses), close off areas which allow speedy transit, and prevent the enemy from coming to the aid of their losing allies. There, it's deterministic and very abstract but if I saw something similar to it in a game I would evangelise it over Fallout-style 'stand and hope for a critical' combat no matter how bad the execution was.

By the way, this would be a cool system. Note that by view of the threads title - there are no HPs.

I would modify it thusly - if the fight is "close" (i.e. 1 stud vs. 2 compentants or 2 guys with close combat value), there should be a % chance of losing with the higher value. Obviously, 2 guys with the same combat value - 50/50 proposition (otherwise what are you abstracting with your combat stat).

Easily extendable to include ranged combat value as well.

Put it on hexes and you have invented a tactical wargame circa 1980! Hey, some of those games have OFFENSE and DEFENSE values, or even a couple other numbers.


One thing I have been thinking about in RPG combat is that it should probably be scalable. 1 vs 1 is different than 1 vs 2 is different than 3 vs 7 is different from 30 vs. 60 etc. up to full on clash of armies.

Several PnP RPGs handle this with different systems for each.

 

[Wyrmlord]

Funny that people seldom complain when they used their players' brain to figure out puzzles that their character probably wouldn't be able to solve.

I'd take int checks over puzzlesolving any day.

But I guess most of the target auditory in the days of yore couldn't resist flipping levers and pushing boulders on pressure plates

Guilty as charged.

 

[Lord Rocket]

No, I hate retarded and senseless puzzles which properly belong to casual games.

I 100% agree with you on that front (although I have no problem with casual games and probably have a very different definition of 'casual' than most of the Codex), but honestly, I would rather be doing anything than simply clicking on a different option depending on some frankly arbitrary decision I made anywhere between 15 minutes to 15 hours ago. As a long time P&Per, I like the idea of solving things, you know, myself.
Best case scenario, Int checks offer insight into puzzles, rather than simply solving them for you. If you're replaying games soon enough that you can remember the solutions to puzzles off the top of your head, you don't have enough to do.
Nonetheless, when it comes down to it, what you're complaining about is an issue with lazy designers, rather than system.

By the way, this would be a cool system.

Heh, cheers mate. The more I thought about it, the more I liked it (even though I was being a little facetious when I came up with the idea).
I was very much thinking of hexes when I arrived at the idea, by the way.
Game devs, fucken do it.

 

[Satanicusmaximus]

Hello. Before I get onto the topic at hand I'd just like to say that you are wrong about humans not running simulations, in many cases we do so in our dreams when we sleep. Now if I wer going to design a way of dealing with damage I'd make it location based and go into as much detail as constraints allowed (it's not like I need to feel guilty for making my computer do more calculations) ie I would give the limbs, abdomen, and head, a certain amount of hit points (hitpoints would not be level based but based on stats such as strength and constitution as there would be no character levels only levels for skills wich in turn would effect stats) wich the sum of equals blood level wich if reduced can result in unconsciousness and death. When an areas hitpoints decrease different things can happen ie if your arms hit points are reduced you can't hit as hard with it, it shakes whilst you are trying to take aim, it bleeds etc. I'd also give hitpoints to soft spots and vital organs as the damaging and protection of these things would make the game more believable and fun (Who here doesn't want to see the dark knight keel over and cry like a baby when you hit him in the groin with your warhammer in an underhand strike?). I'd also add a fatigue bar just like in Morrowind and Oblivion to represent the effects of pain and fatigue. All of these alterations would not make the actual process of combat too complex the ony layer it would add in a 1st person type of rpg for wich it is intended is the deliberate targeting and protection of soft spots/vital organs. Outside of combat a simple visit to the doctor or heal spell could still make you good as new. Realistically it may seem like you can be reduced to a cripple rather easily but that's only if you exclude the damage reducing effects of armour, magical blessings, forcefields, skillfull dodging and positiong, shield use, use of cover, use of other skills etc.