Increasing health with level = Stupidity

[Norfleet]

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.

Sure, but never to the same degree. Either defensive options upgrade faster than offense, meaning higher-level characters are more prone to grappling ineffectually against each other, making increasing hitpoints unnecessary, or offense outstrips defense, resulting in a situation where, if all characters had level-1 hitpoints, they would be dead in a single round.

Also, increasing HP tends to GREATLY favor melee combat. In most games, ranged combat has already gotten the short end of the stick, where weapons capable of realistically striking and killing targets at ranges of hundreds or even thousands of meters are reduced to barely tens or less. Throw that on with increasing health, and the result is a weapon that is largely ineffectual, as ranged vs. melee is based on the stopping power equation, not damage vs. damage.

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.

I'm not even talking about player vs. AI when it comes to this: Turn-based games intrinsically carry more exploitability than real-time games. Consider: how does REALITY operate? In real-time. When you abstract it into a turn-based environment, you have "game-ified" it, opening up another avenue for exploitation. And by turn-based, I include "allegedly real-time games that actually operate in clearly punctuated phases such that the underlying mechanic is clearly turn-based", ala BG2, NWN, etc., although these situations are usually closer to real-time behavior. But no, even without unintentional stuff, there are simply FAR more opportunities to really abuse your opponent in a turn-based environment, simply because you can conduct an entire litany of abuse in a single turn, without his ability to react to it. In a real-time game, you can't carefully walk your soldiers up to the enemy and empty round after round of gunfire into him until he dies, then start shooting up the next enemy: You're either charging your battle-line up in unison and unloading a barrage of lead at a single enemy, resulting in overkill and wasteage, or you are firing everywhere, resulting in things not dying. In turn-based mode, you can walk man A up, fire a shot, verify hit/miss/kill, move your next man, repeat. All very precise...in ways totally impossible in real-time. This is not even an exploit, this is something that is intrinsic to the system. Yes, the AI can do it also, but the AI will never compare to the ruthlessness a skilled human player will execute such a thing. Even without AI players, the difference in skill level between a noob and a veteran is massive.

In short, player skill matters just as much, if not more, in a turn-based game than in real-time, because turn-based tends to grant fewer lucky breaks and opportunities for panicked reflex actions to do any good.

 

[Serus]

I am curious - how many people that think increasing hp is the only way to reflect character grow actually played rpg games where the hp (or the equivalent) is static or almost static ? What is wrong with those games ?
I believe some people played too much d&d and its clones and thinks it is the only possible approach at designing.

 

[hiver]

I cant remember any rpg game with static HP and im eagerly awaiting AoD which will have set, static HP points.

 

[Darth Roxor]

Yes, roleplaying games games without static hp are d&d clones, and I can remember roleplaying games games where hp was static and they were good.

 

[Serus]

Yes, roleplaying games games without static hp are d&d clones, and I can remember roleplaying games games where hp was static and they were good.

I didn't say that. Not all are d&d clones, not even the majority of curse BUT there are many d&d games on the market and d&d was always very influential - for many more "casual" players rpg = d&d.

It was an argument ad absurdum, a weak one.

 

[Xi]

It's a matter of keeping the player challenged and on his toes.

Oh yeah? Where is the challenge when all of your characters have abilities that one shot every enemy(Or vice versus)? Hell, those abilities would scale beyond character HP to the point that it would become redundant and pointless. Why even progress under such terms?

This is a pro-industry argument in the name of dumbing down. That is clear.

 

[Serus]

It's a matter of keeping the player challenged and on his toes.

Oh yeah? Where is the challenge when all of your characters have abilities that one shot every enemy(Or vice versus)? Hell, those abilities would scale beyond character HP to the point that it would become redundant and pointless. Why even progress under such terms?

This is a pro-industry argument in the name of dumbing down. That is clear.

You are saying here that hp/health is the ONLY measure of how long a character can survive in combat ? What about some alternatives ? Ability to dodge or parry incoming blows that increases when the character gains experiance ? Armor that prevents damage ? No ! Clearly hp is the only true way.

 

[Xi]

You are saying here that hp/health is the ONLY measure of how long a character can survive in combat ? What about some alternatives ? Ability to dodge or parry incoming blows that increases when the character gains experiance ? Armor that prevents damage ? No ! Clearly hp is the only true way.

No, but I'm not arguing that we should remove HP entirely in favor of avoidance either.(edit)

 

[Crispy]

You are saying here that hp/health is the ONLY measure of how long a character can survive in combat ? What about some alternatives ? Ability to dodge or parry incoming blows that increases when the character gains experiance ? Armor that prevents damage ?

The classic (D&D) definition of hitpoints includes as an abstraction of some of those things. Same with AC.

 

[Serus]

You are saying here that hp/health is the ONLY measure of how long a character can survive in combat ? What about some alternatives ? Ability to dodge or parry incoming blows that increases when the character gains experiance ? Armor that prevents damage ?

The classic (D&D) definition of hitpoints includes as an abstraction of some of those things. Same with AC.

Agreed but this is only one possible way it can work. The level of abstraction is a matter of design choice, as is the level of "realism" we want to include in a game. Some games are more complex others are less. It is as simple as this. Im NOT arguing that increasing health with level = stupidity. We are talking about games and the combat should work, be fun and challenging in the first place. Those are the main goals.
Personally i like systems where hp/health is almost static, in JA2 or Darklands only the armor protects you from dying after 1-3 hits. I played pnp rpg systems where hp was de facto completly static and 2 good hits killed you every time (even ONE hit if you were unlucky). A lot of characters died but a good player could minimise the risks and play tens of sessions without dying. It was FUN but it doesn't have to suit everyone tastes.

 

[Smarts]

But no, even without unintentional stuff, there are simply FAR more opportunities to really abuse your opponent in a turn-based environment.

I'm going to draw on an example here. Baldur's Gate 2, fighting a Shadow Dragon, level 13/14 party, not very well-equipped.

Now, this was pretty hard. I only attempted it because I couldn't be bothered to come back to the place after levelling up a whole bunch. On paper, it shouldn't have been possible. Dragons in BG2 were pretty lethal.

Now, just as you describe, I knew what it was capable of and what it could do. And I knew how to shut down many of its' options, including its' spellcasting. The plan was pure micromanagement, whittling down the thing with barrages of missile fire whilst various members of the party took turns in running around distracting it, rotating and healing injured members.

It worked. However, one of the party died in the process, the party was almost completely exhausted with regards to spells and resources, and the last quarter or so of the fight had just been running around shooting the giant thing while guzzling healing potions. I know that had the party had hit point totals equalling 50% of the hit points they actually had, or maybe even as many as 75%, chances are it would not have worked. The damage the dragon could dish out in one round of contact was simply too much (as it was, it was nearly too much for the hit point totals the party DID have). One swipe would have equalled death; with two or more deaths, the effectiveness of the party would have decreased exponentially; the party would have been obliterated in short order. Short of finding some loophole or exploit in the dragon's AI, there would have been no way to overcome an obstacle like that.

I needed those hit points as a buffer, against the vagaries of the dice if nothing else. Likewise, the dragon would have been no challenge without the sheer amount of damage it could absorb. If all it would have taken was one single perfect particular specific hit to destroy it before it does the same to you, there would have been no actual challenge at all - just a case of try, reload, try, reload, try, reload... instead of the 25-minute battle that occurred.

A similar situation in a real-time game, where the amount of damage you suffer is based on actual avoidance of (or failure to avoid) projectiles and attacks rather than simulated avoidance using opposing dice rolls and modifiers, would probably have been very different. In that situation, yes; a sufficiently skilled player could have overcome the dragon. All they would have needed to do would be to continually avoid the dragon's attacks whilst whittling the dragon down. In a turn-based, though (yes, I know BG2 was RTWP, but it serves as a good enough illustration of the point), the numbers shackled me to having to take probability and statistics into account, no matter how good my strategies were.

Question: how else could you represent a turn-based RPG battle such as I describe - that is, a party against a single, very tough and powerful creature - without the use of hit points?

 

[Wyrmlord]

It's a matter of keeping the player challenged and on his toes.

Oh yeah? Where is the challenge when all of your characters have abilities that one shot every enemy(Or vice versus)? Hell, those abilities would scale beyond character HP to the point that it would become redundant and pointless.

But it makes all your other options in combat far more important - it would be more important to use the most vital spells that will crush the enemy, more important to use better equipment to kill enemies faster, more important to find any advantage against your enemy, when you are under the risk of instant and permanent death.

And when your own party member can do a Critical - he becomes more vital to the party, because he can use his Critical on enemies that can use Critical on your party. It raises the stakes higher for everyone. So when he gets immobilized, killed, or unconscious, you stand to lose a great advantage.

Question: how else could you represent a turn-based RPG battle such as I describe - that is, a party against a single, very tough and powerful creature - without the use of hit points?

Good turn-based battles never involve a single powerful enemy anyway.

Because one enemy means only one thing to worry about. You as a party won't have to coordinate against anything else; merely unload all your power against one creature. And beyond that, it is just trying to stick and survive the battle. I don't find such battles challenging.

I have found that battles against a large number of simpler enemies can be far more potentially challenging. Trying to fight one goblin while another shoots an arrow at you, and keeping your spellcaster the hell away from all the little critters out there to interrupt his spell - that is way more challenging than just buffing up and unloading your best spells against one creature.

 

[Darth Roxor]

Yes, roleplaying games games without static hp are d&d clones, and I can remember roleplaying games games where hp was static and they were good.

I didn't say that. Not all are d&d clones, not even the majority of curse BUT there are many d&d games on the market and d&d was always very influential - for many more "casual" players rpg = d&d.

It was an argument ad absurdum, a weak one.

way to miss my point.

 

[Lemunde]

The game I'm working on is going to use a system similar to this. The player starts off with hp somewhere around 100, depending on how he creates his character. Throughout the game you can get bonuses to your health by equipping certain types of items or by receiving special training. Your health will never go much above 200 this way, though. Pretty much all stats are going to work this way. There won't be any leveling in the traditional sense. You can make your character more powerful by doing a variety of things but hacking at goblins for xp isn't one of them.

 

[Smarts]

I don't find such battles challenging.

That's... not what I asked. A band of heroes against something far more powerful than them individually, and more powerful than them together (like a dragon) is a staple of fantasy stories, and a system that can't deal with that sort of scenario is lacking.

So, how to do it (and make it a sufficient challenge), but without the use of hit points, and without making it too frustrating, in a one-hit-you're-dead way?

 

[hiver]

Meh. Good armor that reduces damage is the way to go instead of HP.
Plus increasing dodge abilities and skills, plus magic that does both.

 

[Norfleet]

I needed those hit points as a buffer, against the vagaries of the dice if nothing else.

That is because the D&D system and thus the game is designed for this. It doesn't HAVE to be.

Likewise, the dragon would have been no challenge without the sheer amount of damage it could absorb.

The health of MONSTERS is not the issue at hand, anyway, as monsters do not level. Therefore, some monsters simply DO have more health, perhaps because they are huge winged lizards instead of small pink monkeys. The issue at hand being that a squishy pink monkey should NEVER be able to simply out-tank an ENORMOUS LIZARD.

In truth, it is utterly ridiculous at all that you can kill an enormous dragon by simply slashing at it with your swords. Even arrows are somewhat laughable. Certainly these should not EVER represent effective approaches. In a realistic scenario, this would be all but impossible, like trying to kill a bear with a staplegun. You should practically be REQUIRED to think of something sensible to do rather than simply taking every enemy by chopping at it with your swords until it suffers a critical existence failure, like shooting it with siege equipment.

 

[Smarts]

That is because the D&D system and thus the game is designed for this. It doesn't HAVE to be.

Perhaps not. I'm still waiting to hear how this hp-less system will take this stuff into account, though. Simply saying that

The health of MONSTERS is not the issue at hand, anyway, as monsters do not level

is really just avoiding the issue, as the problem is, these monsters will be fighting the party, who do. This idea of 'having something sensible to do' - in every case? If the party are surprised by a monster and have no 'sensible option' planned, they die? While this is realistic, it doesn't leave the writer a lot of room to manouver.

The way I see it is that there isn't a way to have a realistic, nail-biting combat system on the human scale, and combine it with fantasy stuff like giant monsters, except by - as you say - avoiding those combats. And where's the fun in that?

 

[dolio]

I'm still waiting to hear how this hp-less system will take this stuff into account, though.

Where exactly in this thread did someone talk about an hp-less system? I skimmed a bit and the only person I saw bringing that up was you. What most people have been talking about is a system where hp doesn't increase at all over the lifetime of your character. I may have missed it, though.

The only game I've played like that (static hp) off the top of my head is Bloodlines, and it seemed to work all right there. As you gained experience, you got abilities that allowed you to either avoid taking hits, or reduced the damage of hits rather than simply having a higher number of hit points. There were enemies that simply took a lot of damage to bring down, however. And combat wasn't that important for most of the game.

I'm not really clued in to how the pen and paper system works, though. I get the impression it's even less hp-like, and more like a few levels of damage, because the game is geared toward telling stories, and not detailed tactical combat.

 

[Norfleet]

Perhaps not. I'm still waiting to hear how this hp-less system will take this stuff into account, though. Simply saying that

"Health not increasing with advancement" is not the same as "HP-less". The arguments of hitpoints-based mechanics is an entirely seperate issue than HP-increasing-at-level-up.

is really just avoiding the issue, as the problem is, these monsters will be fighting the party, who do.

You know, in the old days, games were expected to get HARDER as you got deeper into the game. I fact, I remember one game whose name I forget, probably because it was unpronounceable and foreign, where, although you advanced and got better, cooler stuff, you ALWAYS had only 10 HP, and it never improved. You got better at attacking and defending, and thus could avoid getting hurt, but your hitpoints never improved. It was also quite easy to get your character's ass handed to you if you weren't careful, and the solution to this was that you got very good at hiding behind your pack of expendable redshirted mooks.

This idea of 'having something sensible to do' - in every case? If the party are surprised by a monster and have no 'sensible option' planned, they die? While this is realistic, it doesn't leave the writer a lot of room to manouver.

"RUN AWAY! RUN AWAY!"

The way I see it is that there isn't a way to have a realistic, nail-biting combat system on the human scale, and combine it with fantasy stuff like giant monsters, except by - as you say - avoiding those combats. And where's the fun in that?

In aforementioned game, I distinctly recall shooting down said enormous dragon by firing ballistas at it and then finishing it off by jamming a lance up its butt. Arrows tended to just bounce off. The game, of course, made it quite clear that you WERE hunting this enormous monster and that you had best have impressive firepower to bring to bear, and that said monster literally COULD incinerate your characters in one hit (which is why you sacrifice expendable redshirts instead).

Oh, yeah, and that level was hellahard. No one said this job was supposed to be easy.

 

[Qwinn]

You know, in the old days, games were expected to get HARDER as you got deeper into the game.

+1. Oh, how I despise the current mindset that dumbs down games to moronic levels. I want to see -hard- games again, but no one seems to be making those anymore.

Qwinn

 

[Smarts]

What most people have been talking about is a system where hp doesn't increase at all over the lifetime of your character.

Yes. That is what I meant.

You know, in the old days, games were expected to get HARDER as you got deeper into the game.

Not saying it shouldn't. I just want you to show me a system without a steadily-increasing hit point pool that can hang together in the face of ever-growing challenges and doesnt' rely on...

expendable redshirted mooks.

Assuming there were no redshirted mooks and this was a game based around one character or a small party, how would this work?

"RUN AWAY! RUN AWAY!"

Well, exactly. That is the only recourse. Hence me saying that the writer does not have much room to manouver.

 

[mondblut]

"RUN AWAY! RUN AWAY!"

An RPG about running away from combats?

You're kidding, right?

 

[Norfleet]

An RPG about running away from combats?

You're kidding, right?

No one said anything about the game being about running away from combats. But, you know, in the aforementioned scenario where you foolishly blunder into a situation that you realize you won't win, it might be a serious option to consider, you know? When you run into a small bunny, a frontal attack might not work out too well. Perhaps you should run away and fetch the Holy Hand Grenade.

Assuming there were no redshirted mooks and this was a game based around one character or a small party, how would this work?

Summon Monster? That spell may as well be useful SOMETIME.

"RUN AWAY! RUN AWAY!"

Well, exactly. That is the only recourse. Hence me saying that the writer does not have much room to manouver.

Yes, but I bet the player will learn not to blunder into situations where he's not properly prepared to deal with what's there anymore after that. If not, he's too stupid to succeed. In fact, in MANY games, probing attacks are considered a standard strategy: You take a small force and you advance with no intent of actually WINNING outright, just to see what kind of defensive responses you encounter, before following up with an attack. In such a situation, you would equip yourself with the loadout needed to deal with weak opposition, and use the rest of your loadout for optimizing your ability to avoid damage and escape so you can attack again in force. Why is it implicit that you should be able to overcome any opposition with any randomass loadout on the first pass with zero intelligence?

 

[mondblut]

But, you know, in the aforementioned scenario where you foolishly blunder into a situation that you realize you won't win, it might be a serious option to consider, you know? When you run into a small bunny, a frontal attack might not work out too well. Perhaps you should run away and fetch the Holy Hand Grenade.

That's what the "load game" function is for!