HP-less RPG combat

[DraQ]

*edits the OP*

 

[Emotional Vampire]

Enjoy your Roll To Broken Tooth.

 

[Castanova]

The discussion in this entire thread is predicated on a supremely flawed basic assumption. That a more complex combat system, modeled more closely to a bunch of nerds' perceived reality of combat, would be more interesting/challenging and therefore fun. I hate to tell you folks but real hand-to-hand combat is not an intellectual endeavor (dare I say, "twitchy"? lol). Shoe-horning a decision-making process into a largely intuition-based physical battle is misguided at best. Even if it results in a fun game it won't have anything to do with combat simulation.

If anything, this location-based damage scheme being supported here is funding a series of self-contained, purportedly interesting choose-your-own-adventure combat encounters by selling any sense of game world cohesiveness. If you accept HP as a measure of character fatigue rather than taking it literally to mean the number of cubic liters of blood in the character's veins, then at least resting/healing/regenning makes sense in the context of the game world. If every encounter involves my arm getting chopped off then you're not making a serious RPG, you're making a Monty Python game. OK, ok, so it's very difficult for your arm to get chopped off... right? Great, now you're just playing a HP game with slightly different wounding mechanics.

There's a lot of talk in this thread but not much action. It would take Programming 101 level knowledge to model up a combat system with text feedback (rather than graphics) where you could tinker with these amazing HP-less systems to your heart's content. Please do so and report back with something that's fun and meaningfully different than what we've already got. Armchair designers with a battalion of design documents need not apply.

 

[Lord Rocket]

Balls. It's predicated on the fact that HP attrition sucks and is boring, which it is. PnP games have had more interesting systems for years, pretty much since the hobby started (from my own post, Traveller 1977, Runequest 1978, Rolemaster 1980 - 82, although that began as an alternative combat system for AD&D).

Plus, in case you haven't realised, HP-less does not mean 'realistic,' or 'simulation.' Assuming that it does is, to use your own words, supremely flawed.
Perhaps you got confused when most people wanted greater lethality in their suggested systems?
As you yourself pointed out, we're talking about games here. They are designed to be played, which involves player input. Hence, 'decision making' is a massively fucking important part of the whole thing - even Diablo includes a bit of strategy, although that is limited to choosing who to attack, what to attack with, and when to withdraw. Would it be enjoyable if the computer made those decisions for you, justifying it with your character's 'intuition?'

Finally,

If anything, this location-based damage scheme being supported here is funding a series of self-contained, purportedly interesting choose-your-own-adventure combat encounters by selling any sense of game world cohesiveness.

Assume I don't know what the fuck you're talking about here, and explain yourself.

 

[Vaarna_Aarne]

Though if we were to talk about good HP using systems, GURPS comes to mind first. Though it has the unfair advantage of cheating.

 

[Castanova]

Balls. It's predicated on the fact that HP attrition sucks and is boring, which it is. PnP games have had more interesting systems for years, pretty much since the hobby started (from my own post, Traveller 1977, Runequest 1978, Rolemaster 1980 - 82, although that began as an alternative combat system for AD&D).

HP is a way of keeping score. If, in a particular game, the only way to "score" is by pounding the attack button repeatedly because you're level 10 and the enemy is level 1, then that's a problem with the game mechanics not the fact that the game chose to use HP.

Plus, in case you haven't realised, HP-less does not mean 'realistic,' or 'simulation.' Assuming that it does is, to use your own words, supremely flawed. Perhaps you got confused when most people wanted greater lethality in their suggested systems?

Of course not but every suggestion in this thread for improving HP mechanics that I can remember came in the form of "increased" realism or at least de-abstraction. Also, as was pointed out in this thread previously, HP by a different name is still HP. And HP has nothing to do with lethality. HP bloat does which is a different matter.

If anything, this location-based damage scheme being supported here is funding a series of self-contained, purportedly interesting choose-your-own-adventure combat encounters by selling any sense of game world cohesiveness.

Assume I don't know what the fuck you're talking about here, and explain yourself.

Does this combat scenario:

- The bear bites your arm!
- Your arm falls off!
- What do you do?
(a) Stab the bear in the eyeball [eyeball: 5/7 hitpoints] 5% success rate
(b) Elbow the bear's neck [neck: 10/15 hitpoints] 10% success rate
(c) Lick the bear's testicles [2/2 hitpoints] 69% success rate

sound fun for you? Do you want to go through this process every time a level 1 bear stumbles by? Does this actually increase depth and challenge? Or is this a superficial change to the bear just having one set of hitpoints?

 

[Stella Brando]

There's two things that need to be considered by games:

- An experienced or skilled fighter should be better able to avoid a sword slash, not absorb it.

- Damaged body parts have consequences - less abilty to walk, fight, whatever.

There, topic finished.

 

[DraQ]

Balls. It's predicated on the fact that HP attrition sucks and is boring, which it is.

This.

Of course not but every suggestion in this thread for improving HP mechanics that I can remember came in the form of "increased" realism or at least de-abstraction.

Butthurt detected.

Do you want to go through this process every time a level 1 bear stumbles by? Does this actually increase depth and challenge? Or is this a superficial change to the bear just having one set of hitpoints?

If I want to just mow down hordes of foes I play Diablo or DOOM. Another problem with traditional RPGs and, especially, with cRPGs.
The exact same argument also can be used against turn-based combat, and I don't know if you want this kind of shit on your hands.

 

[Mayday]

Of course not but every suggestion in this thread for improving HP mechanics that I can remember came in the form of "increased" realism or at least de-abstraction.

No shit, Sherlock? Considering HP is the ULTIMATE abstraction, this is hardly a surprise.

 

[Castanova]

The exact same argument also can be used against turn-based combat, and I don't know if you want this kind of shit on your hands.

One on one turn based combat is almost always shit. In fact, I can't think of a single game where it's not shit. Fallout, Planescape, Arcanum, all your holy games. Shit 1 on 1 combat. DF's system has been praised here but 99% of the charm stems from its nearly nonsensical, gory text descriptions. The combat itself is not an exercise in thought, it's an exercise in luck. DF gets off the hook so easily precisely because of its alpha status. Try putting that combat system in a complete game and see where it takes you.

Turn based combat shines in squad situations which is, shockingly, the same scenario where anti-micromanaging abstractions like HP are most welcome. Dig?

No shit, Sherlock? Considering HP is the ULTIMATE abstraction, this is hardly a surprise.

Oh, bother, you caught me using the wrong word. Replace "HP mechanics" with "combat mechanics" and my point stands.

 

[Castanova]

- Damaged body parts have consequences - less abilty to walk, fight, whatever.

Exactly illustrating my point. You people are focusing on the wrong problem. Whether a character's whole body is represented by one HP region, 10 HP region, or 10,000 HP regions, it won't make a damn difference in terms of combat depth. Choosing between a 58% chance to hit them in the face, resulting in CRIT DAMAGE, and a 47% to hit them in the arm, resulting in SLOWER ATTACK SPEED, is not depth.

In Chess, you don't choose between a 45% chance to take someone's bishop and a 25% chance to take their rook. You don't have some inane rock scissor paper scheme where the Bishop > Pawn > Queen > Bishop. You anticipate the opponent's moves, you develop advantageous positioning using a set of unique pieces, and then you are rewarded with a 100% chance to take the opponent's piece combined with the vague possibility that you just fell into a trap. That's deep, thoughtful, turn-based combat.

 

[DraQ]

The exact same argument also can be used against turn-based combat, and I don't know if you want this kind of shit on your hands.

One on one turn based combat is almost always shit. In fact, I can't think of a single game where it's not shit

You won't twist out of this that easily.

Team or not, TB can be a real annoyance when combat is frequent enough - see Wizardry 8. If you argument that more detailed damage systems are bleh because they are annoying, same goes for TB.
Given that you made an implicit assumption that RPG must have tons of combat and mobs I can only draw a conclusion that the RPG of your dreams is Diablo, which is devoid of the annoyances of both, detailed damage system and TB combat, at which point I must kindly ask you to GTFO of this thread, or, indeed, out of the Codex.

In Chess

Epic Fail. This is RPG Codex, not Chess Codex.
Unlike chess, RPGs aren't completely abstracted tactical games. Figures in chess bear little to no semblance to their real world namesakes, while in RPG a warrior is intended to represent some actual mean-intentioned fucker in mail/plate equipped with some pointy/blunt implement of destruction.

 

[Castanova]

Team or not, TB can be a real annoyance when combat is frequent enough - see Wizardry 8. If you argument that more detailed damage systems are bleh because they are annoying, same goes for TB.

I don't get your angle here. You don't like real time combat and, apparently, you don't like TB combat either. It seems your goal is to create a TB combat system that is interesting enough that you can periodically get through it without annoyance but not so interesting that you want to do it a lot? Is your desire to improve RPG combat borne of wanting to feel superior rather than the hope of making the combat actually, you know, FUN?

Given that you made an implicit assumption that RPG must have tons of combat and mobs I can only draw a conclusion that the RPG of your dreams is Diablo, which is devoid of the annoyances of both, detailed damage system and TB combat, at which point I must kindly ask you to GTFO of this thread, or, indeed, out of the Codex.

Given that one on one RPG combat sucks giant donkey balls then I think it's a fair assumption that you should fight, oh I don't know, more than one enemy at a time. I don't think that automatically makes the game a Diablo clone.

Epic Fail. This is RPG Codex, not Chess Codex.
Unlike chess, RPGs aren't completely abstracted tactical games. Figures in chess bear little to no semblance to their real world namesakes, while in RPG a warrior is intended to represent some actual mean-intentioned fucker in mail/plate equipped with some pointy/blunt implement of destruction.

DraQ logic:
1) Abstract tactical games involve thought and strategy and are therefore deep and fun
2) RPGs feature people, not pieces, so therefore the combat must not be abstract
3) Since combat must not be abstract, its goal is to be an arbitrarily complex simulation of an ironically unrealistic concept of how combat is conducted
4) While this simulation method makes me feel intellectual, it's not much fun and it's unfortunately quite time consuming
5) RPG combat is time consuming and not much fun and so the goal should be to have as little combat as possible which would simultaneously make me feel like a troo RPG gamer

You're right. Epic fail.

 

[Virtz]

One on one turn based combat is almost always shit. In fact, I can't think of a single game where it's not shit. Fallout, Planescape, Arcanum, all your holy games. Shit 1 on 1 combat.

I thought it was quite fine in Fallout save for the hit and run off tactic. Although I do agree that in most RPGs overall, one on one combat is shit. Due to simplicity, including HP.

DF's system has been praised here but 99% of the charm stems from its nearly nonsensical, gory text descriptions. The combat itself is not an exercise in thought, it's an exercise in luck. DF gets off the hook so easily precisely because of its alpha status.

Which goes to show how well you comprehend it. Hint - press shift+a, then Enter to switch to wrestling mode. Now you can do some more advanced stuff like grabbing and yanking away the enemy's weapon or strangling them to death.

Try putting that combat system in a complete game and see where it takes you.

Bring on the RPGs with grappling systems where you can gouge out eyes and break arms. I'm pretty sure that'd be awesome. And fact is, I can barely play any other roguelike having played DF's adventure mode due to the combat system.

 

[Mayday]

Castanova: the problem is that chess is a simulation of a war between huge armies. You can't expect that kind of strategy from squad-level combat.

I might have missed some crucial post but I don't see any specific ideas from you- just criticism (which is worthwile but not very productive).

Making the combat less lethal (disabling opponents rather than outright killing them) might be one solution: you get to choose whether to try and finish off the weakened enemy or jump to somebody else.
Adding more variation in the way weapons and spells work (other than simple damage vs hp) will force you to think about which unit should handle which opponent.
More advanced squad commands would also add to the fun:
-wait for visual contact
-hold position until enemy comes into range
-try to stand behind me
-only shoot conscious opponents
-wait behind the corner until signaled

and so on. Bring it on man!

EDIT: on TB- single action turns are the way to go. The way it's done in roguelikes. At any given point, the one who has the MOST action points gets to move. Every attack should be divided between aim and execute phase, to give the target a chance to respond (if he has enough APs that is). Anything else?

 

[Castanova]

My criticism mostly stems from people dreaming up all sorts of alternates to HP, etc etc, in the form of forum post length design ideas and then assuming that these ideas are superior to current systems. It takes rudimentary programming knowledge to code up and test your combat ideas. Within days. Days, people. You don't need a graphics engine, a random world generator, and a dwarf personality engine to test out a combat system. So, just as you said to me, I say to everyone here guilty of mental masturbation: put up or shut up.

I'm not going to do what I just criticized. I actually am putting together a roguelike with my own ideas on combat (it uses hitpoints). I'll let that eventually speak for itself. I did mention something in an earlier post, though, which I think is pretty important: your spells/special attacks/etc should be manipulations of the environment and the mental state of enemies. I think simply resolving not to have any spells that do actual damage would be enough to force a pretty interesting combat system (assuming you're given a frail character).

 

[crufty]

excellent point and very true. you don't even need to code really. simple xls spreadsheets can do the trick.

I laid out a complicated series of formulas once to test this very theory. complicated, completely non-abstract combat scenarios taking into account arm length, handedness, body types etc. movement taking into account stride, height and actual terrain features, measured in quarter inches. realistic damage.

you know what I found?

to hit % / HP / squares were basically the same. All that depth added squat.

I then mapped status to HP counts. It seemed a little more fun. What IS the difference between a 10 hp rat and a 10,000 hp dragon? Its hard to imagine. All you really care about is status - healthy, bruised, bloodied, near death, dead, undead, etc.

So back to my original post in this thread: HP improvement is cool I guess. However, it is more important to add more actions to the game world. Being able to pick up a chair and smash it over someones head is way cooler then knowing you have a 6.7% of a crtical hit to the abdomen. Certainly, colorful text is useful "the orc's mcl buckles under the weight of your mace" but the combat system should be secondary to what the player can actually do.

This is what makes roguelikes so much fun. It's the stuff you can do that matters. Being able to stab a bear in the eyes might seem like a fun idea, but it just doesn't add that much given the sheer amount of monster deaths the player will be encountering.

my $0.02 (again)

 

[mondblut]

There is a plenty of RPGs and squad tactics where hitpoints do not grow and/or are tied to static constitution-type stat exclusively. Darklands, Prelude to Darkness, JA, Brigade E5, you name it.

Other than having to reload once in a while due to an accidental headshot, functions fine.

 

[Davaris]

This is an idea I came up with after reading this thread. After writing it up and then looking through RPG_Design_Patterns_9_26_05.pdf, I found that it is almost exactly the same as HeroQuest.


HERO TOKENS TO (SORT OF) REPLACE HIT POINTS

This rule system would be suitable for story based games that play like Hollywood blockbusters, where improbable actions are performed by heroes and super villains. It would suit pen and paper RPGs, or 2D computer RPGs with lots of text and clickable option lists created by the DM (programmer) for each area or encounter.

Combat uses amour class, damage resistance, morale checks, resist magic and *realistic* hit points that are dependent on race/size and don't increase as a creature's level increases. The main difference is players can spend hero tokens to pull off heroic actions. Such actions could be slaying a dragon with one blow, escaping death, cracking a safe, breaking into a secure computer network and so on.

A creature can spend its hero tokens on skills it has knowledge of and it is physically able to perform -- a cripple cannot perform an action, if it requires the movement of their legs, a dragon who's skin is impenetrable to ordinary weapons, can only be slain by a magical weapon, if a creature does not have computer skills, it cannot hack into a secure mainframe, a 100 pound weakling with no knowledge of martial arts, cannot defeat a karate black belt in hand to hand combat.

Skill levels range from Ignorant --> Beginner --> Competent --> Expert. Hero tokens can be spent on skills the character has knowledge of, to advance them temporarily by one level (only), for the action the player wishes to perform. So Beginner becomes Competent, and Competent becomes Expert for a single called action. If a hero token is spent on a skill the creature has Expert knowledge of, then a heroic feat is performed -- a knockout punch, the (almost) impossible shot, the opening of an uncrackable safe and so on.

Hero tokens can be spent on unskilled actions that have consequences in the game, tipping a bookcase onto the bad guys, pushing a piano down the stairs.

When a hero token is used, the player describes what will occur. Then if one of the monsters/NPCs chooses not to counter with a hero token of their own, or has no hero tokens left to use (not all monsters will ever have hero tokens), the action occurs as stated by the player.

There should be limitations as to what can or can't be achieved with hero tokens and these must be made clear in the rules (needs work).

When a creature advances a level, they can choose to gain one hero token, or advance one of their skills or primary stats by one level.

Hero tokens are refreshed when a creature rests.

Primary stats are eliminated for simplicity, and where useful are included as skills -- for example Strength becomes Body Builder.

Some example skills:
Body Builder, Memory Expert, Handgun, Safe Cracker, Rifle, Broadsword, Pick Pocket, Driver, Aircraft Pilot, Helicopter Pilot, Acrobat, Spell Caster, Karate, Crossbow

There are only so many skills and traits a creature can become Expert in. If they wish to advance another skill to Expert level, they must reduce another Expert level skill to Competent level. This rule applies to Competent level skills. Beginner level skills cannot be reduced to Ignorant level, unless a creature suffers brain damage, or a physical impairment prevents them from performing the skill.

Do we limit the number of Hero Tokens a player can hold? Hero Tokens can be like aces in a deck of cards. You can only hold a maximum of n tokens at any time.

 

[DraQ]

*bump*

sheer amount of monster deaths the player will be encountering.

Another assumption that RPG must be H&S slaughterfest. Would it not be better if combat was rare and meaningful?

Back to the topic. The games that would benefit from HP-less mechanics are cRPGs. PnP and computer games are different media and each medium has it's own strengths and weaknesses. Both PnP RPGs and cRPGs are intaractive and both cast players in roles they can further define using game's mechanics that includes stats. Similarities end here. Computers can't innovate. Humans don't run complex simulations, nor they can integrate mechanical and sensual representation of the events.

It's only natural to try and make cRPGs that integrate events and their depictions. It'd also be good to circumvent computers' inability to innovate. Finally, some people who enjoy RPGs also enjoy simulations for the sake of it.

By deabstraction of the game's mechanics, including HPs we can achieve:
-integration of the engine and mechanics - obviously.
-flexibility - complex simulation allows for emergent behaviour which in turns allows for more flexibility without having to guess every possible player's action and scripting game's response, as well as easy addition of stuff into the game.
-simulation can be fun - simply that, judging form how much such a simple and ultimately mindless game as Cortex Command gains from having complex physics engine and things like destructible limbs and attachments, the potential is limitless.

Just like movies are different from books and books are different from games, cRPGs should be different from PnP RPGs, unless given cRPG is specifically a PnP emulator.

 

[Davaris]

Would it not be better if combat was rare and meaningful?

So you are saying cRPGs have too much combat in them, which makes them boring

- complex simulation allows for emergent behaviour

and the solution is to create a complex combat simulator.


If anyone went to the trouble of creating a complex 3D combat simulator, they would put it at the very center of their game play. Essentially they would create a fantasy first person shooter (with hand to hand combat). The game would look a lot like the 3D GTA games.

EDIT:

I turned up this article recently while searching for something else.

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

A 1962 Surgeon General's study of gunshot wounds during WWII and the Korean War found that there are three effects of being shot: Death, Shock or Nothing. That's it. You simply die from the first bullet, go into shock and are out of combat, or nothing happens to you at all.

The Nothing category involves the bullet passing through the body without effect; the bullet striking the body and simply bouncing off (yeah, even largecaliber bullets); or wounds that don't immediately have an effect in the middle of combat but lead to complica, tions later - bleeding and infections, for example. What do hit points have to do with such effects?

What about sword fights? Although melee weapons offer a greater chance to wear an opponent down in the style of hit points, you're still looking for that one blow that overcomes your opponent's body she goes into shock or dies. It isn't that "cumulative" damage isn't sustained; a man might leave a sword figl-it with a broken arm and a punctured lung. But it's much closer to Pondsmith's quote above: until that one blow strikes home and takes a combatant out, no blow matters.

So why do roleplaying games have hit points? They're a rule carryover from wargames. Players used to command units of soldiers. As the units took damage, soldiers were removed from play. Continuous damage whittled down a unit's strength. But a unit of soldiers slowly losing strength is completely different from an individual slowly dying. Especially since, as noted above, individuals rarely die slowly from the effects of weapons.

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

 

[Castanova]

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). The assumption is then made that by increasing the complexity of a combat system (goodbye HP), the combat will become less tiresome. The most intuitive (and least imaginative) way to increase combat complexity is by taking aim at abstractions like HP. Hence the thread-wide interest in things like localized damage, aimed-shots, wound systems, etc etc.

The more I think about it, the more I feel that it's invalid to draw a negative linear relationship between abstraction and complexity. Take Magic: The Gathering. It is, in a sense, a 1 on 1 combat simulator (with vanilla hitpoints no less). It's extremely abstract by any means of imagination. And yet, it's relatively complex and much more interesting than 1 on 1 combat in any given cRPG. Something similar could be adapted for a more fast-paced RPG game... where at any given time, your available moves are random and could change the following turn.

And then of course there's the fallacy that more complex always means more fun. But that's another thead, I guess.

 

[Davaris]

The thing I forgot to mention was that people were also talking about something like a wrestling simulator. It would be easy to do in a text game, but I imagine it would be very hard to do in 3D.

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).

Perhaps part of the solution lies elsewhere? I was thinking of a system that combines models of conflict (as in story conflict) and resolution, basic psychological responses to stimuli, societal etiquette and scripting.

A system like that could be used to make combat more difficult to get into, as the player would have to earn the right, or maneuver the antagonist into a position where they can be confronted and defeated physically, psychologically, or socially. This way combat would be more meaningful, in that it would have story altering and player altering consequences.

You could still have minor fights with lesser minions, but confronting the antagonist would require something extra. There is a film that shows something like this called Gladiator (1992). In it the protagonist is a young boxer who is being exploited by a manipulative, bullying boxing promoter. The film concludes when the young boxer and his friend, gain the confidence to confront the boxing promoter and defeat him in combat.

 

[zenbitz]

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

But this is actually brilliant. If this is the effect you are trying to recreate in your game, you can easily design a system of whatever level of detail you want to get these results. Without reading the 1962 study, you would want to decide _where_ those bullets hit, and if possible the distribution of calibres, etc. But to me, a gun fight in a "realistic" RPG should be ducking and sniping, not absorbing more bullets than the bad guy.

For HERO points - I think these are just "buffs", right?

 

[Serpentine Cougar]

Assuming you want to create a system without HP just for the fun of it, without regard to realism, seems like you'd want to shift the focus from how much you get hit (as in an hp system) to whether or not you get hit at all in the first place.