HP-less RPG combat

[Balor]

Well, it's more about 'generic HP systems' vs 'alternative hit-location and wound-based ones'.
Anyway, even the most hardcore wound system may allow your character to be almost completely death-proof - provided that his skills are high enough. (And if you want to).
For instance, chance of a monster to score an automatic hit in AD&D system is 5%. And additional 5% chance for automatic critical strike. That's pretty high, actually. It means you will still hit bullseye automatically one time out of twenty even if you will drink yoursellf blind and fire at a tiny target from a kilometer away with a gun that has an accuracy of a musket, if applied to real world.
So, if you are an uber 99-level barbarian, and is attacked by ten 1-level goblins, it's is quite possible that a chance of one goblin landing a critical, instant-kill strike would be equal to the chance of all those goblins lucking out and rolling d20th (and with high enough weapon damage rolls) enough to bring your monstrous HP pool down in one-two rounds.
It's all a matter of balance, you know.

 

[Flux_Capacitor]

No, there is no fucking reason that can explain why a high level character shouldn't be dead if I cut his throat with a blade while he's sleeping or in a backstab.

Oh, come on.

Warriors develop growing layer of muscles shielding important vessels and organs as they level up. Similarily, mages, as often mentioned by Terry Pratchett in Discworld novels, grow a prtoetctive layer of lard. Of course, lard, being less dense than muscles, offers worse protection, thus mages don't get as much HPs as they level up, as warriors do.

Look up the Coup de Grace rule. There's a pretty good chance to instantly kill someone who's helpless, particularly with certain weapons, regardless of the target's hit points. A mid to high level thief is virtually guaranteed the kill, in any case.

 

[Autowin]

People love their HP system because it keeps experienced people from dying to less experienced enemies. <sarcasm>Since we ALL know that so long as you have more experience than someone you can always defeat them.</sarcasm>

It's definitely not a technical implementation problem either. Creating an improved system isn't even hard. Snake Eater did it, Dwarf Fortress did it, and games partially implement it all the time (ie: shot to leg makes you stagger).

 

[Raapys]

Yah, and that's the point; there are many other ways of preventing experienced players from being killed by goblins other than giving the experienced player the ability to somehow soak dozens of goblin blows. For instance something as simple as giving the experienced character a great dodge skill( not related to armor worn ), or how about actually having characters' skill with weapons matter also when defending? After all, it would naturally be much harder to get in a hit on an experienced swordsman than on one that just started out.

 

[Autowin]

or have the player not be able to tank a dozen goblins at once.

they might even have to use their brain to get through the game.

 

[Raapys]

Indeed. RPG combat has basically just been about who has the best fighting stats. Now, I don't really mind this per se, but one thing I think action games like Oblivion and M&M Messiah did right was giving the character some optional ways to kill opponents( throwing them off a high place, pushing them into spikes, throwing very heavy and large objects at them, setting them on fire, etc.); these games are poor examples, since they're mostly just about the map designers putting up some very deliberate and stupid traps that the player can take advantage of, but I still think the idea is good. Let the stupid warrior rush head-on into the battle risking life and limbs, and let the smart guy devise a clever plan to take out the enemy without suffering a scratch.

 

[Autowin]

if only developers were committed enough to do such things.

the way it stands now, warrior-mode is often the most fun/fast/easy way of doing things, if not the only way to progress (ex: most of Oblivion)

 

[The_Pope]

I really don't see why 10 kobolds shouldn't be a threat to one high level character. There's 10 of them. Unless, of course, roleplaying means 'wimpy nerds using spreadsheets to pretend they can beat up the people who were mean to them in high school'. Then carry on with the pre-pubescent power fantasies about taking on 10 enemies single handed.

 

[sheek]

Guys, wait until you see my combat system. I'm going to post it pretty soon it's taking a while to organize though.

 

[eth]

replacing the HP system with a more complex, realistic system seems logical to me.. doesn't it mean moving closer to role playing, as apposed to the bethesda model of simplifyng and moving away from roleplaying?

No. It means moving closer to simulation. Myself i don't see any failure to HP. The way it is implemented in many RPG may be wrong but not HP itself. I mean that in most RPG you 'll see that you get something like 10 hitponts at start and something like 10 hit points per level (ie. ad&d). This results into the situation, some people don't like, that when you come across low level monsters their damage is too little to do any harm to you. (But doesn't the same thing apply to armor, protection spells and also your better weapons/stats that will kill the low level enemy in milliseconds? - it's about scaling).

Anyway instead of the classic 10hit points per level you could have a game with 10hp initial and 1hp per level or something like that (ie less scaling).

To respond to your question i don't think what you say is the opposite of what you call "Bethesda model". All these big guys, including Bethesda, like to replace hand written content with computer generated content - programming. Creating a more complex health scenario as you say is actually computer generated content - some programmer will implement it once in their logic engine of the game and voila you have it in the whole game. The player will get to spent more time to thinking what stats etc he should prioritize in his char and each time he levels up or whatever, instead of spending this time to what i call "actually play the game" (ie reading journals, talking with NPCs, completing objectives). In both cases the goal has been reached: the game isn't too short in playtime. What you got in each case:
1) A more complex character system which complements the game's complexity so its actually like you have created content. It takes less time to implement than hand written content plus you can copy-paste the actual code been written to the sequel of the game.
2) A more complete/unique game world. It takes more time to implement and of course you can't copy-paste it to the sequel of the game, instead it makes it even more hard to write the sequel cause you should figure out a logical relation between this and the hand written content you will write on your sequel, which takes additional time.

(Bethesda removed crossbows on Oblivion to avoid creating a ton of textures for them. The code/logic for ranged combat was there before even the first line of code for Oblivion was written (ie Morrowind) :wink

 

[Assiduous]

Why not simply modifiers on the attack?

Dragons bites you, you roll your arm-one piece-likey saving throw, get a 19, +4 for your armor, +3 for your ahnold muscles, +3 for your magic ring of troll skin, and fail anyways because the dragon has very sharp teeth and could bite the arm off another dragon, nevermind your pussy little human arm, which would have needed to roll a 50 to stay in one piece.

Choice and consequence mate, and inertia ofc.

In your example a +4 armor and +3 muscles is exactly the same as a +3 armor and +4 muscles. I for one would find it more interesting if heavy armor actually made you easier to hit while reducing the damage you take. The only reason for stat combination of this kind is to reduce the number of rolls required, number of rolls might be important in PnP but in CRPGs...

On the other hand it's "easier" to balance and we all know we shouldn't require the poor developers to actually make an effort for their diamond studded plasma screens...


Same thing with a pool of HP vs. different kinds of damage, specific damages, bodyparts etc.
A single stat for keeping track of damage makes it easier to keep PnP fluid, once again that is not an issue in CRPGs.


If lvl adds to HP and different classes adds different amount your character is just a class and a level. Id rather have a nimble fencer with a high endurance or a heavy plated knight with a high pain threshold than a generic lvlx fighter.

 

[SkeleTony]

The problem with D&D way of doing HPs is that they only work perfectly in pen and paper, where HP can mean a combination of luck and all the shit you can come up because you don't visually see anything "hit" the character and the Dungeon Master is controlling all the major happenings.

They do not even work well in pen & paper and, as I pointed out already, the rationalization of "HP = luck + toughness + a bunch of other shit" does not work either. It does not make much difference if a game system is pen & paper or computer RPG. the principles are largely the same.

Everything is in the way the Dungeon Master describes the fight and the player doesn't have to care for the mechanics.

But the mechanics should still make sense AND be fun/user friendly. The problem with a lot of people is this assumption that "realism = 'not fun'/hard to use'."(where "realism" = "logical consistency") and this is nonsense.


@Jasede

The D&D system is NOT integral to the genre of 'Role Playing Gaming'. You make it sound as though any game coming after 1974 & D&D, using any system different than D&D is not a RPG unless it copies D&D's exact HP and leveling mechanics. That is just dumb.

 

[Jasede]

Look, I shouldn't be even posting in this thread, but your sentence is a bit silly. I grew up with DSA (the RoA rule system), not with D&D; not to mention pretty much every CRPG has levels and HP - that's where I am coming from.

 

[SkeleTony]

Look, I shouldn't be even posting in this thread, but your sentence is a bit silly. I grew up with DSA (the RoA rule system), not with D&D; not to mention pretty much every CRPG has levels and HP - that's where I am coming from.

Again, whether you grew up on D&D or a D&D-derived game or what have you, is irrelevant and even if it WERE true that almost every CRPG had similar systems is also irrelevant because the genre was not created for computer gaming or with personal computers in mind. RQ was the second or third RPG ever created and it did not use levels or an absurd 'HP gaining' system.
My point being that you keep trying to0 define the genre as needing these strict, crappy systems that D&D is responsible for. What you are doing is like saying "My first FPS game was DOOM and DOOM did not use 3D polygonal graphics! It used beautiful 2D sprites! These newer games that use 3D graphics are not real FPS games. Next you 'Quake' fans will be asking that FPS games switch to isometric view!!" . It is a silly straw man.

 

[Jasede]

I don't see why you care about what opinion I have. And you use the word straw man way too often. All I said - for the 395843968th time - is that I wouldn't design a HP-less cRPG because it wouldn't be all that RPGy to me. Location-based HP are still HP in this regard.

That's all I wanted to express. There's no need to tell me how wrong I am because you're not changing my opinion and I am not changing yours. God!

 

[Section8]

They do not even work well in pen & paper and, as I pointed out already, the rationalization of "HP = luck + toughness + a bunch of other shit" does not work either. It does not make much difference if a game system is pen & paper or computer RPG. the principles are largely the same.

Actually I think they're a good solution in P&P by virtue of their simplicity. The DM already has to account for a bunch of players all wanting to roll at once, positional changes, temporary modifiers, duration effects and about a billion other things in most systems - why add more headaches than are necessary? In CRPGs, that sort of complexity is a good thing, but that's because you have a CPU handling it all and not a human brain.

 

[SkeleTony]

I don't see why you care about what opinion I have.

Because you keep posting the same absurd, misinformed opinion over and over. Don't make it sound like I came to your doorstep trying to engage you in debate.

And you use the word straw man way too often.

Is there an alternative term for when someone is mis characterizing other people's opinions in ridiculous ways to make them easier to 'knock down' that you would be more comfortable with me using when you do this?
If you keep trying to feed others bullshit and they keep saying "that's bullshit" then the fault is not on them for saying "bullshit".

All I said - for the 395843968th time - is that I wouldn't design a HP-less cRPG because it wouldn't be all that RPGy to me. Location-based HP are still HP in this regard.

What does that have to do with what I said? I have no problem with HPs as I have said a dozen times now.

That's all I wanted to express. There's no need to tell me how wrong I am because you're not changing my opinion and I am not changing yours. God!

Oh...well, thanks for your opinion. Don't let me tie you up and keep you here debating the matter. I will turn off my "Force-Jasede-to- keep-saying-stupid-shit-in-a-debate" machine now and allow you to leave the thread.

 

[Jasede]

Whatever. <>

 

[SkeleTony]

They do not even work well in pen & paper and, as I pointed out already, the rationalization of "HP = luck + toughness + a bunch of other shit" does not work either. It does not make much difference if a game system is pen & paper or computer RPG. the principles are largely the same.

Actually I think they're a good solution in P&P by virtue of their simplicity. The DM already has to account for a bunch of players all wanting to roll at once, positional changes, temporary modifiers, duration effects and about a billion other things in most systems - why add more headaches than are necessary? In CRPGs, that sort of complexity is a good thing, but that's because you have a CPU handling it all and not a human brain.

RQ did not use levels or level-scaled HPs and it is easier to use than D&D in most regards and far more fun AND realistic. Logical consistency does NOT = "headaches" or 'unnecessary complexity'. A good game designer can achieve both. D&D is just not a good game design.

 

[Damned Registrations]

Why not simply modifiers on the attack?

Dragons bites you, you roll your arm-one piece-likey saving throw, get a 19, +4 for your armor, +3 for your ahnold muscles, +3 for your magic ring of troll skin, and fail anyways because the dragon has very sharp teeth and could bite the arm off another dragon, nevermind your pussy little human arm, which would have needed to roll a 50 to stay in one piece.

Choice and consequence mate, and inertia ofc.

In your example a +4 armor and +3 muscles is exactly the same as a +3 armor and +4 muscles. I for one would find it more interesting if heavy armor actually made you easier to hit while reducing the damage you take. The only reason for stat combination of this kind is to reduce the number of rolls required, number of rolls might be important in PnP but in CRPGs...

The scenario as stated was that the dragon has already bitten you. Since this is a question of arm severed or not, the thickness of your arm and how much steel is wrapped around it are both doing basically the same thing.

Ironically, DnD actually takes into account armor making you easier to hit by reducing your maximum possible dex bonus. If you use some optional rules (Gasp! Horror!) you can get exactly the effect you're looking for by simply converting the AC bonus into damage reduction.

The whole point of my post was that limb loss doesn't need to be any more common than critical hits taking out all your hp. If you have armor + muscles + magic then you shoul;d be as immune to arm hewing as a level 20 fighter is to being one shotted by a critical hit. If you're a skinny wizard wearing panties and a bra being attacked by an ogre with a masamune, you should have your limbs hacked off as easily as you'd lose your hp in a boring system. There doesn't need to be any change of difficulty or danger. Moreover, reattaching/healing limbs makes a hell of a lot more sense as a relatively common magical boon to exist than RAISE DEAD. And if it isn't an instant thing, it'll still have a major penalty associated with it. An adventurer with less than 6 fingers isn't much of a threat after all.

 

[DraQ]

Location-based HP are still HP in this regard.

Let's extrapolate a bit for lulz and our daily recommended dose of absurd, shall we?

What do you think about cell-cell based HPs? Still merely a HP system?

 

[Jasede]

HP are HP. Semantics.

 

[DraQ]

HP are HP. Semantics.

</pointless_semantic_quibble>

 

[AlanC9]

I'll bite...

HP are HP. Semantics.

What's the argument here? That any mathematical representation of a character's health is a "HP system"? If so, how is a system without HP even possible?

Back to making sense...

Level-scaled HPs are dopey, sure. But they do have a design purpose in D&D and all games derived from it. They let wizards blow up lots of grunts with fireballs and whatnot without handing the game over to them. It's really difficult to achieve this sort of effect in something like Hero System. Not sure about RQ.

I think general HPs aren't a bad concept; even if the computer can handle more complex stuff, the player has to be able to make rational decisions, and I don't think a complex wound system is the kind of thing I want to delve into while playing. But you could also overlay wound effects on top of this. SPI's old Dragonquest system did this; critical hits did specific injuries with specific consequences, such as bleeding, loss of limbs, loss of agility. My favorite was taking a sword through your ribcage. If you survived, at least you had disarmed your opponent, since his sword remained stuck in your chest.

 

[Raapys]

Thing is, you wouldn't even need to worry about the "complex wound system", since the computer would take care of all that automatically. Note that having such a wound system doesn't necessarily mean that you can't keep the old 'Let's rest for 8 hours and be fully healed when we wake up' feature, or the good old 'Heal' spell or potion. It just means that getting hit will have immediate consequences in terms of lowering your fighting ability in the current battle.