Increasing health with level = Stupidity

[mondblut]

Still does not make sense though(for reasons I already outlined above) and a good game designer can do much better than this tired old D&D-ism that has plague RPGS for decades now.

A good designer can. More likely, however, it will be "headshot, you die, lol". I'd rather play a game wth hitpoints than a reload roulette with crippled characters, nor a cheatfest with rules working only for the party.

And why even have a "to hit" roll then?

Because it is fun to make an occasional roll. To hit is a check of attacker's skill. A defender doesn't roll "to dodge" or "to parry", does he? He's got his hitpoints instead.

so would not just have the dragon roll his breath damage and deduct it from everyone's HP that is within range ?

Uh, dragon breath doesn't call for tohit roll. It calls for saving throws

 

[Serus]

Betrayal a Krondor and Darklands (and some more less known games) are proof that a static or almost static health model can work very well in crpgs. The problem is that d&d and its clones are dominating the maket, this is not bad in h&s games but i would like to see some more variety, especially in "real" rpgs.

 

[BloodyPuppy]

Uh... What?

Go away.

Ah sweet codex, your scorn hurts so good.

 

[Ebonsword]

Hitpoints are an abstract attribute of a strictly statistical model, just like "attack" and "damage" are. They do not translate to realworld phenomena like "health", "blow" or "wound". They just emulate how long you can survive being stomped by a dragon, thanks to whatever.

If that's the case, why can a 10th level fighter survive a fall off a 100' cliff while a 1st level fighter cannot? I don't see a character's skill making a lot of difference in that situation.

 

[Elric]

If that's the case, why can a 10th level fighter survive a fall off a 100' cliff while a 1st level fighter cannot? I don't see a character's skill making a lot of difference in that situation.

This is a legitimate fault of the system. D&D already accounts for skill by reducing falling damage with DC 15 Jump and Tumble checks. To say that HP again accounts for skill is, in a sense, double-counting.

 

[mondblut]

Hitpoints are not any more skill than they are health. I repeat, it's a *statistical abstract*. Wherever necessary, it accounts for: martial prowess, vitality, luck, willpower, divine favour, and pretty much anything else you can take into account on why somebody survived something somebody else did not.

There are occasional accounts of people who fell from 9th floor or so and survived relatively unscathed. In D&D terms, that means they had more hitpoints than the falling damage they rolled, that's all.

As for double-counting, there is a lot of it really. Getting "hit" involves both using natural dexterity and armor's defense to avoid it and "hitpoints" to stay alive despite taking "damage". Getting into fireball involves both a "saving throw" for a chance to halve "damage" and "hitpoints" to survive it. I'm fine with it. As far as I am concerned, having to make 2 rolls is more fun than having to make one AND than having to make ten.

 

[kingcomrade]

what's the difference between strategy and tactics?

 

[Elric]

As for double-counting, there is a lot of it really. Getting "hit" involves both using natural dexterity and armor's defense to avoid it and "hitpoints" to stay alive despite taking "damage". Getting into fireball involves both a "saving throw" for a chance to halve "damage" and "hitpoints" to survive it. I'm fine with it. As far as I am concerned, having to make 2 rolls is more fun than having to make one AND than having to make ten.

Fair enough.

HP scaling with level works alright with the D&D system. There are a few kinks, but the system as a whole works better with HP scaling. To remove it requires revising entirely how a lot of things in the system work, especially how damage scales with level, and how higher level spells are more powerful than lower level ones.

 

[BloodyPuppy]

Strategy is the employment of several tactics to accomplish something. Tactics are maneuvers and such that make up the strategy. I believe that's right anyways.

 

[Panthera]

It's hard to put a concrete definition on the difference, but strategy is always more general than tactics. Most commonly, tactics is the interplay of weapons systems and the meat-and-bones of hurting the other guy, while strategy is just how to get there and what you're trying to accomplish by doing so.

 

[mondblut]

Strategy is corps- and army-level command, tactics is squad-, platoon- and company-level command.

 

[IlkuWarrior]

what's the difference between strategy and tactics?

Strategy: Which bridge are we gonna cross?
Tactics: How are we gonna cross it?

 

[BethesdaLove]

A strategy is a long term plan of action designed to achieve a particular goal. Strategy is differentiated from tactics, or immediate actions, with resources at hand by its nature of being extensively premeditated, and often practically rehearsed.
The word derives from the Greek word stratēgos, which derives from two words: stratos (army) and ago (ancient Greek for leading). Stratēgos referred to a 'military commander' during the age of Athenian Democracy.


A tactic is a conceptual action. In military usage, a military tactic is used by a military unit of no larger than a division to implement a specific mission and achieve a specific objective, or to advance toward a specific goal. A tactic is implemented as one or more tasks.

 

[Woreczko]

Bam!
It`s unbelievable, how easy can one derail a topic! <rotfl>

 

[Crispy]

It's always a fine balance between "realism" / simulation and the RPGishness of everything encircling the process of levelling up, isn't it?

On one hand, we want a more visceral, challenging experience to more closely model what would happen should a man don armor and a sword and swing it violently at other men or monsters (heh). He'd probably die sooner than later.

However, how much fun is that? We all want to be the hero. We all want to complete the epic quest and face down the foozle. Hard to do that with static HP.

It's interesting how games following the D&D model compare to those like Mount and Blade. La variété est le piment de la vie. <-- That's an iGoogle translation. Hope it's right.

BTW, notice I didn't mention Oblivion.

 

[Norfleet]

Increasing health with level is a necessary attribute, and actually PRESERVES balance, allowing harder enemies to be introduced, and reflecting the growth in experience and strength.

Horseshit. The DOOM Marine never got health increases OR levels, but we still had to face harder enemies. You know what happened instead? THE GAME GOT HARDER. What a novel idea, that the game ACTUALLY GETS HARDER as you progress in levels!

However, how much fun is that? We all want to be the hero. We all want to complete the epic quest and face down the foozle. Hard to do that with static HP.

I don't see why it's necessary that the hero improve in his personal attributes or even skills at all. Heroes in literature don't necessarily gain levels or new skills at all, but simply apply their existing skills to the new problem. The DOOM Marine didn't gain any hitpoints or skills either, but that didn't stop you from taking on uglier and meaner demons. The real fact of the matter is that people have come to associate "RPG" with "level-up game". It doesn't have to be that way. Would the game be somehow worse if the character simply WAS, and never "levelled up" at all, but instead, the challenge was how the PLAYER would apply his existing skills and inventory to resolve the situation? Isn't that what a GAME is about? I mean, how is the game really any more interesting if you have 10x the HP, and do 10x the damage, and fight against an enemy that has 10x the same? That's no change at all!

 

[Crispy]

The eternal turn-based isometric vs. real time first-person struggle.

To abstract the overcoming of game obstacles into stats or to let the player do it?

To allow unrestricted freedom of exploration through level scaling or to play the geography game instead?

These are The Days of Our Lives...

 

[Elric]

Horseshit. The DOOM Marine never got health increases OR levels, but we still had to face harder enemies. You know what happened instead? THE GAME GOT HARDER. What a novel idea, that the game ACTUALLY GETS HARDER as you progress in levels!

As you progressed through the game of DOOM, you as a player got better. With practice, you got better at aiming, and at not getting hit. This doesn't happen in a turn-based RPG. Your likelihood of dying, and chance of hitting are modeled by the statistics in the game. Because you can't get more accurate as a player, the game models that by increasing your chance to hit. Similarly, because you can't actually get better at avoiding things, the game models that by increasing your hit points. Put simply, hit points in DOOM, and hit points in an RPG are not equivalent, because in an RPG, they compensate for the fact that a player's skill at mitigating damage can't improve the way it does in a shooter.

 

[Serus]

Horseshit. The DOOM Marine never got health increases OR levels, but we still had to face harder enemies. You know what happened instead? THE GAME GOT HARDER. What a novel idea, that the game ACTUALLY GETS HARDER as you progress in levels!

As you progressed through the game of DOOM, you as a player got better. With practice, you got better at aiming, and at not getting hit. This doesn't happen in a turn-based RPG. Your likelihood of dying, and chance of hitting are modeled by the statistics in the game. Because you can't get more accurate as a player, the game models that by increasing your chance to hit. Similarly, because you can't actually get better at avoiding things, the game models that by increasing your hit points. Put simply, hit points in DOOM, and hit points in an RPG are not equivalent, because in an RPG, they compensate for the fact that a player's skill at mitigating damage can't improve the way it does in a shooter.

You also learn as you play turn based rpg - the rules of the system, combat mechanics, how the AI works, what mistakes it makes, etc... You get better just like in a shooter.
Otoh i disagree with idea of RPG where the stats are completly static, your character in RPG should grow. The point is - it doesn't have to be health. In some games basic stats (like dexterity or wisdom) are static (most based on d&d) in others they can grow. In some games health grows rapidly (d&d) in some it is almost static (BaK, JA2, Darklands). Everything can work if implemented well. It is just a matter of choice. Personally i prefer the games where health rises slowly, it just feel more "realistic". It also usually requires more tought when designing skills, combat and enemies, with d&d model it is easy to just make monsters have 10 times more hp when your char have 10 times more hp too.

 

[Elric]

Otoh i disagree with idea of RPG where the stats are completly static, your character in RPG should grow. The point is - it doesn't have to be health. In some games basic stats (like dexterity or wisdom) are static (most based on d&d) in others they can grow. In some games health grows rapidly (d&d) in some it is almost static (BaK, JA2, Darklands). Everything can work if implemented well. It is just a matter of choice. Personally i prefer the games where health rises slowly, it just feel more "realistic". It also usually requires more tought when designing skills, combat and enemies, with d&d model it is easy to just make monsters have 10 times more hp when your char have 10 times more hp too.

Exactly. That's my point. Static HP is not inherently good, and growing HP is not inherently bad. Its all about how it interacts with all the other mechanics in the system that decide whether it works or not. In and of itself, its an incredibly stupid and shallow way to judge a game.

 

[Norfleet]

Back on topic: I think the necessity of HP scaling up comes from the way traditional (read: D&D) cRPGs improve your character. As your characters gain levels, they also gain MORE things to do. You get more spells to cast, more items to use, etc. The same holds true of enemies. The thing is, if combat is over within 3-4 turns, neither has time to take advantage of this expanded repertoire. They just use the highest-level spells they have, or the most powerful items, and the lower stuff never factors into the strategy. More HP draws out combat, true, but it allows the player to explore his full repertoire of abilities more.

The reason HP scaling is "necessary" when you gain "more" things to do is because all of those character upgrades are offensive. If you simply upgrade everyone's weaponry without upgrading their defensive options, then yes, combat will be over in 3 or 4 turns.

Another reason is the deprecation of lower-level abilities. If a fireball puts you at near-death regardless of whether you're level 5 or level 15, how are you supposed to make Horrid Wilting appropriately powerful without completely obliterating the party?

Is this necessarily a good thing, though? SHOULD lower level abilities be rendered largely obsolete simply because one acquires higher-level powers? In real life, learning a new move doesn't render all of your previous abilities largely irrelevant, it means you have a new trick you can pull that your enemies may not expect. Horrid Wilting should be distinct from Fireball not because Fireballs are demoted to the status of minor nuisance, but because Horrid Wilting attacks in a completely different and new way that the defenses that counter Fireballs don't work as well against. When I upgrade my spaceship and install missile launchers, it is not because missile launchers are so much more deadly than my lazor cannon, but because I now have a new weapon that functions differently, and therefore, I have more options: The missile launcher isn't intrinsically more destructive than the lazor cannon: However, it has a longer range and will not miss its target, but can be stopped by other means that the lazor cannon can't be stopped by. My point is that the "earlier" abilities shouldn't HAVE to be deprecated. Why shouldn't they remain just as viable an option as before? Fireball and Horrid Wilting may be both just as effective against a human target, like the player, but Fireball might be rather useless if your target isn't particularly flammable. Or perhaps the two options can be made to work together in ways that either alone would not: Horrid Wilting may dry out my target, causing it to be more flammable when I follow with Fireball. It doesn't have to be a clear cut and dried case that the new thing supplants the old thing entirely, relegating the old thing to something you use only when you have blown all your ammo.

 

[Smarts]

You also learn as you play turn based rpg - the rules of the system, combat mechanics, how the AI works, what mistakes it makes, etc... You get better just like in a shooter.

You get better, but not as you would in a shooter. The 'damage mitigation' in a shooter is mostly based on your own reflexes, whereas in a turn-based RPG, it's all based on the mathematics behind the system - how much damage you can do, how difficult you have made yourself to attack, how many feet can you run in one turn. Whereas it's possible that someone can be so freakishly good at a shooter as to be able to avoid every incoming hit (barring grenades and such), there will always be an upper limit to how effective your damage mitigation efforts will be in a well-balanced turn-based game, because you can only be as good as the numbers will let you be.

 

[Norfleet]

Whereas it's possible that someone can be so freakishly good at a shooter as to be able to avoid every incoming hit (barring grenades and such), there will always be an upper limit to how effective your damage mitigation efforts will be in a well-balanced turn-based game, because you can only be as good as the numbers will let you be.

You're kidding, right? The number of cheeseball tactical exploits in shooters and other real-time games doesn't even come CLOSE to the kind of crazy shit you can pull in a turn-based game. What's more, in a game which is dependent entirely on your own reflexes, there is a limit to how good you can get at it. In game where none of your own physical attributes matter, you can be as good as anyone you can find to steal strategies from. Not everyone can master rocket jumping, but anyone can follow the strategy guide. The entire POINT of turn-based play is to remove the player's physical limitations from the equation, opening up an entire world of cheap exploits. With real-time twitchy play, your execution of an exploit is only as good as your endurance, so you can only do for so long. With turn-based play, there are no such obstacles to execution, so you can perform it flawlessly every time. Exploiting the inability of the AI to lead a target has nothing on exploiting the inability of the AI to cope with a statistical corner case. Just look how many games feature utterly broken character builds that the AI will simply not be able to cope with, compared to how many real-time games feature a completely unstoppable move.

 

[hiver]

The reason HP scaling is "necessary" when you gain "more" things to do is because all of those character upgrades are offensive. If you simply upgrade everyone's weaponry without upgrading their defensive options, then yes, combat will be over in 3 or 4 turns.

Thats a rather artificial condition we never see in RPGs isnt it?
Defensive options are always upgraded along the offensive ones. And i consider those to be much more natural and believable options then increasing HP. It makes armor, shields, helmets and various dodge or parry skills much more important, as they should be.

Maybe Elric is right saying that restricting HP increase isnt inherently better in on itself but rather depends on its interaction with the rest of the system but i would say it would be pretty darn hard to construct a system with static HP without taking it in account and adjusting the whole system to it.

To me its inherently much more interesting because of the reasons i numbered above.

 

[Smarts]

You're kidding, right?

Not in the slightest. Because this is a discussion about conscious design decisions, all that unintentional-on-the-part-of-the-designers stuff you just mentioned is irrelevant. "Every turn-based game will have exploits and gaps in the AI" is not a good argument against hit points.