Increasing health with level = Stupidity

[SkeleTony]

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...

[/quote]

RuneQuest(P&P game 1976-77).
GURPS(Technically you CAN increase HP by rasiing your ST and/or buying certain talents/traits but there is a limit to this and becomes prohibitively expensive before long.)
Darklands
Freedom Force(You can buy powers or raise Endurance with points)
Etc.

 

[Wyrmlord]

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!

Yeah, why introduce a whole new element of undoing blunders without reloading?

That's the same justification people have for instant ressurection in games.

It's wrong when a game allows a player to make a mistake and yet have no penalty or consideration for it other than being allowed to start over.

 

[SkeleTony]

Still some people here asking for detailed, mechanistic explanation of how a non-HP scaling RPG would work and deal with Dragons vs. PCs and such. So...

In games like RQ, the better the armor was at damage reduction(sans magical enchantments), the heavier and more cumbersome that armor tended to be. Plate armor was better at preventing damage from a sword thrust than studded leather but it also weighed at least ten times as much.
In RQ certain skills having to do with bodily movement/maneuvering(including stealth, dodge etc.) as well as magic skills, were penalized with encumbrance. Most humans in full plate were not going to be dodging someone's granma wielding a purse and they counted on the damage reduction of their armor as well as their shield parrying skill to avoid damage.

This effectively limited 'thief' type characters to leather armors because of the encumbrance alone, without need of artificial restrictions by class. Same went for mages/shamans/priests. Hard enough to cast that really powerful spell in just robes...no one wanted to subtract 50% from this so they could wear chainmail.

Unless you magically increased your SIZE or CONSTITUTION attributes or wore some magical HP increasing trinket, your HP did not go up. An encounter with a dragon in RQ was a lot like a scene from Dragonslayer. Nasty stuff. A party had to have their magical preparations in order...defensive spells vs. fire, buffing spells for the warriors/archers, offensive spells that could penetrate the dragon's hide, etc.

If a warrior was going to act as a 'tank' and go toe-to-toe with a dragon, he would need some deity-forged quality armor. Otherwise the attackers needed exceptional dodge ability and such. Trying to parry a dragon's swipe with anything but a deity-forged quality shield(and even that is a doubtful proposition) would leave a stain as testament to that PC's passing.

Dragons themselves did not have massive hit points(average dragon had 53...about 3x - 4x the average human warrior) but their 24 point armor(all damage reduced by 24 points against them), flying ability and massive damage dealing capacity was immense.

Success in RQ was measured in degrees in that if you had say, 100 sword skill any roll(using that skill to attack) of...I think 20 or lower(1/5th of skill level?) resulted in a special success and any roll of 5% or less(1/20th of skill) was a critical success. Rolling a '00'(for a person with 100 skill) resulted in a fumble.
When dodging/parrying a 'special success' was required against a 'special success' attack roll by the attacker and a 'critical' to avoid a 'critical' attack roll.

So the bottom line for a static HP system is that the simplistic 'Hp increases with levels' is replaced by pertinent skill increases, better armor, etc. No one is shrugging off dragon's claws because they have 10,000 HP from years of adventuring. They are eitehr doging/staying the fuck away from those claws and/or they are well armored/protected.

 

[mondblut]

Yeah, why introduce a whole new element of undoing blunders without reloading?

Because reloading is more convenient and therefore will be used instead. Why bother investing dozens of manhours into designing and coding something nobody will use anyway?

That's the same justification people have for instant ressurection in games.

A plenty of games quickload a last save if the party is killed off. Or keep fallen characters as barely alive after the combat as long as at least one survives.

It's wrong when a game allows a player to make a mistake and yet have no penalty or consideration for it other than being allowed to start over.

There is a plenty of space for consideration after starting over several times doesn't help. From developing an advanced precast plan at best to giving up and going elsewhere at worst.

 

[Norfleet]

In RQ certain skills having to do with bodily movement/maneuvering(including stealth, dodge etc.) as well as magic skills, were penalized with encumbrance.

In truth, stealth is less affected by encumberance than the fact that plate armor is made of shiny metal and goes CLANK CLINGLE CLUNK as you move, and is thus extremely stealth-defeating, regardless of how heavy it actually is (not very, when you're actually used to wearing it). However, no matter how accustomed you are to clanking around in armor, it is never stealthy. Steps can be taken to mitigate this, but it will still never qualify as stealthy.

 

[Squeek]

I always thought fate should enter into the equation, somehow. Higher-level characters could have certain advantages and disadvantages in accordance with their destiny, one that gets established by decisions the player makes throughout the game.

 

[Norfleet]

Such as in the death messages, where if you die, it prints, "So-and-so's destiny has been chosen."?

 

[Wyrmlord]

Still some people here asking for detailed, mechanistic explanation of how a non-HP scaling RPG would work and deal with Dragons vs. PCs and such. So...

In games like RQ, the better the armor was at damage reduction(sans magical enchantments), the heavier and more cumbersome that armor tended to be. Plate armor was better at preventing damage from a sword thrust than studded leather but it also weighed at least ten times as much.
In RQ certain skills having to do with bodily movement/maneuvering(including stealth, dodge etc.) as well as magic skills, were penalized with encumbrance. Most humans in full plate were not going to be dodging someone's granma wielding a purse and they counted on the damage reduction of their armor as well as their shield parrying skill to avoid damage.

This effectively limited 'thief' type characters to leather armors because of the encumbrance alone, without need of artificial restrictions by class. Same went for mages/shamans/priests. Hard enough to cast that really powerful spell in just robes...no one wanted to subtract 50% from this so they could wear chainmail.

Unless you magically increased your SIZE or CONSTITUTION attributes or wore some magical HP increasing trinket, your HP did not go up. An encounter with a dragon in RQ was a lot like a scene from Dragonslayer. Nasty stuff. A party had to have their magical preparations in order...defensive spells vs. fire, buffing spells for the warriors/archers, offensive spells that could penetrate the dragon's hide, etc.

If a warrior was going to act as a 'tank' and go toe-to-toe with a dragon, he would need some deity-forged quality armor. Otherwise the attackers needed exceptional dodge ability and such. Trying to parry a dragon's swipe with anything but a deity-forged quality shield(and even that is a doubtful proposition) would leave a stain as testament to that PC's passing.

Dragons themselves did not have massive hit points(average dragon had 53...about 3x - 4x the average human warrior) but their 24 point armor(all damage reduced by 24 points against them), flying ability and massive damage dealing capacity was immense.

Success in RQ was measured in degrees in that if you had say, 100 sword skill any roll(using that skill to attack) of...I think 20 or lower(1/5th of skill level?) resulted in a special success and any roll of 5% or less(1/20th of skill) was a critical success. Rolling a '00'(for a person with 100 skill) resulted in a fumble.
When dodging/parrying a 'special success' was required against a 'special success' attack roll by the attacker and a 'critical' to avoid a 'critical' attack roll.

So the bottom line for a static HP system is that the simplistic 'Hp increases with levels' is replaced by pertinent skill increases, better armor, etc. No one is shrugging off dragon's claws because they have 10,000 HP from years of adventuring. They are eitehr doging/staying the fuck away from those claws and/or they are well armored/protected.

That is some really cool stuff.

I mean, if we implemented that sort of stuff, alot of people who are turned off by typical RPG mechanics would really start getting into RPGs more. A game focusing on attack methods rather than how long one can last with their HP.

I mean people complain that RPGs involve grinding (although good ones do not), because if you don't have a certain amount of hitpoints, you can't stand a chance against particular enemies simply on the basis of hitpoints, and you have to spend time farming easy kill for XP simply so that you have enough hitpoints to walk through those enemies. RPGs should never be about stagnating for a long time, so that you can be allowed to move on to the next part.

 

[mondblut]

I mean people complain that RPGs involve grinding (although good ones do not), because if you don't have a certain amount of hitpoints, you can't stand a chance against particular enemies simply on the basis of hitpoints, and you have to spend time farming easy kill for XP simply so that you have enough hitpoints to walk through those enemies.

Does not compute.

Grinding is to increase power in general, not merely hitpoints. So weaponskill would be a deciding factor, then people would grind to increase said weaponskill because they wouldn't stand a chance simply on the basis of skill.

 

[Wyrmlord]

But wait, what is this RQ that Tony is talking about?

 

[mondblut]

RuneQuest. A D&D competitor dating back since 1979, now being published by Mongoose. King of Dragon Pass is loosely based on its Glorantha setting (but not its mechanics).

I don't know how exactly skills are increased there (use? XP buy?), but if they are (and how wouldn't they be?), they *will* be grinded for in a computer game.

 

[dolio]

They won't if grinding doesn't do any good. For instance, in Bloodlines, you don't get any experience for killing things (with about two exceptions). Only for progressing in quests (by whatever means you choose).

So, even if there were random battles you could fight (which, for the most part, there aren't), there'd be no point to grinding, from an experience standpoint at least. And that's about the only way you can ensure that no grinding takes place: make it worthless.

 

[mondblut]

They won't if grinding doesn't do any good. For instance, in Bloodlines, you don't get any experience for killing things (with about two exceptions). Only for progressing in quests (by whatever means you choose).

Yeah, Bloodlines. An utterly railroaded environment where no door ever opens until a quest says so, and combat which is not only horribly shitty, but absolutely bereft of rewards to boot.

Riding a train avoiding all encounters, that's the way you want all RPGs to be? I sure as hell don't.

So, even if there were random battles you could fight (which, for the most part, there aren't), there'd be no point to grinding, from an experience standpoint at least. And that's about the only way you can ensure that no grinding takes place: make combat worthless.

Fixed.

 

[dolio]

As a matter of fact, I found it enjoyable to play a game where slaughtering every potentially hostile thing in my path wasn't always the optimal/only solution. Doors being unlocked/items appearing only in response to quests is lame, but I don't see why that couldn't be relaxed in principle.

Sneaking through areas in Bloodlines is typically as challenging as killing everyone. So yeah, why not allow a choice between two or more different types of gameplay for completing your quests instead of forcing the same solution to every problem?

 

[mondblut]

As a matter of fact, I found it enjoyable to play a game where slaughtering every potentially hostile thing in my path wasn't always the optimal/only solution.

Not always being the optimal solution is one thing (fairly prevalent in many occasions in many RPGs). Being an useless waste of time and ammo is quite another.

Doors being unlocked/items appearing only in response to quests is lame, but I don't see why that couldn't be relaxed in principle.

Because this is a form of control over giving away XP. Make every area open, and the next day you have guides online pinpointing how to gather all safe XP first and proceed to fight Bosses (tm) with maxed out skills.

Sneaking through areas in Bloodlines is typically as challenging as killing everyone.

Sneaking is by far preferable. Way to go for an RPG.

So yeah, why not allow a choice between two or more different types of gameplay for completing your quests instead of forcing the same solution to every problem?

Because, uh, "RPG" means some quite specific gameplay, which doesn't spell "stealth action"?

 

[dolio]

Not always being the optimal solution is one thing (fairly prevalent in many occasions in many RPGs). Being an useless waste of time and ammo is quite another.

No it isn't. Killing things is almost always more rewarding than not killing things in RPGs, because you get experience/equipment/whatever on top of whatever the quest reward is. And rarely do games up the reward for non-violent solutions to compensate for the fact that you didn't get any of the rewards built into the engine for killing things (and even if they do, then sometimes you can kill the people anyway for a double bonus).

Technically even in Bloodlines you get the weapons people drop when you kill them, although that isn't much of a reward in most cases.

Because this is a form of control over giving away XP. Make every area open, and the next day you have guides online pinpointing how to gather all safe XP first and proceed to fight Bosses (tm) with maxed out skills.

So what? How is that different from reading a guide of all the places with easy combat encounters so that you can fight difficult encounters afterwards?

Sneaking is by far preferable. Way to go for an RPG.

The only place I've come across where sneaking is significantly preferable to combat is the sewers. That is, excepting the actual stealth missions, where you're not allowed to kill people. Most of the optional combat in the game just isn't that difficult.

Because, uh, "RPG" means some quite specific gameplay, which doesn't spell "stealth action"?

Right. I guess Diablo is in the running for the top RPGs of all time, then.

 

[Wyrmlord]

They won't if grinding doesn't do any good. For instance, in Bloodlines, you don't get any experience for killing things (with about two exceptions). Only for progressing in quests (by whatever means you choose).

Yeah, Bloodlines. An utterly railroaded environment where no door ever opens until a quest says so, and combat which is not only horribly shitty, but absolutely bereft of rewards to boot.

Riding a train avoiding all encounters, that's the way you want all RPGs to be? I sure as hell don't.

This summarises why Bloodlines is a shitty casual dumbed down game that pretends to be a RPG, and why it is the genesis and the prototype of all the handholding trash we get these days.

 

[mondblut]

No it isn't. Killing things is almost always more rewarding than not killing things in RPGs, because you get experience/equipment/whatever on top of whatever the quest reward is.

Occasionally a non-violent solution involves getting more quest xp than offing everyone. Occasionally it doesn't. Choice is good. Which is something Bloodlines with its crappy and non-rewarding combat doesn't offer there.

(and even if they do, then sometimes you can kill the people anyway for a double bonus).

Uh, that's the way it works in real life, too. Sell a case of cocaine, then kill the customer and get the case back, you can see it in every gangster movie.

So what? How is that different from reading a guide of all the places with easy combat encounters so that you can fight difficult encounters afterwards?

In most decent RPGs encounters get more challenging with the distance from starting location, so there is no guides necessary - killing the easy ones first is a natural game flow.

The only place I've come across where sneaking is significantly preferable to combat is the sewers. That is, excepting the actual stealth missions, where you're not allowed to kill people. Most of the optional combat in the game just isn't that difficult.

While sneaking, you: 1) don't have to waste ammo, 2) don't have to put yourself in danger, 3) don't have to engage in horrendously shitty and annoying combat, and 4) occasionally get more xp for the quest (like in underground parking, for example).

Right. I guess Diablo is in the running for the top RPGs of all time, then.

Diablo is an action game, not unlike Bloodlines.

Now, if it would have a party of 4+ and a decent turn-based combat...

 

[mondblut]

This summarises why Bloodlines is a shitty casual dumbed down game that pretends to be a RPG, and why it is the genesis and the prototype of all the handholding trash we get these days.

Bloodlines ia a good visual novel. Great characters, excellent writing, atmospheric art direction, faithful representation of VTM setting.

As far as gameplay goes, it is a horrible abomination. Not only as an RPG it pretends to be, but as a shooter it is, as well. To enjoy it, turn on god mode and just read the stuff, ignoring the "game" parts.

 

[Wyrmlord]

It is indeed an abomination of gaming as a whole.

Puzzles? A haunted mansion for an item fetching quest? Platformer style parts? An immortal werewolf that you kill with an area based puzzle? Fish monster that you kill by blowing up freezers to freeze it?

What we all need to understand -

is that Tim Cain is a shitty game designer.

Stonekeep? The Oblivion of the early 90s.

Starfleet Academy? A second rate space combat game years behind other space combat games.

Turn-based combat in a Tim Cain game is full of cheap exploits and unchallenging enemies. A complete moron can break the systems of his games, and can beat the game without having to even think.

The fact that he eventually made a twitch game like Bloodlines is hardly a departure from his style.

There are shooters where stats matter more than Bloodlines. Bloodlines is probably the twitchiest RPG I have ever played and I can think of quite a few first-person action RPGs with better and more fun combat systems than that. Ultima Underworld was made 12 years before Bloodlines, but is 100 years ahead of it.

 

[Hory]

A RPG in which you don't get experience from combat is not a RPG!

 

[Wyrmlord]

A RPG in which you don't get experience from combat is not a RPG!

I think mondblut's point was actually that

- Stealth in Bloodlines was overpowered and easy (which it was)
- There was no penalty or consideration against it
- You actually got rewarded for it, even though it was easier

That is perfectly valid.

 

[mondblut]

A game in which you don't have any incentive to bother with combat is not a RPG!

Fixed.

 

[dolio]

Bloodlines ia a good visual novel. Great characters, excellent writing, atmospheric art direction, faithful representation of VTM setting.

As far as I can tell, it's a relatively faithful representation of VTM period. VTM isn't a tabletop war game with just enough story to tell you why you're killing orcs. It's LARPing and community storytelling with some stats and dice added (and not just for combat). If anything, most of the powers in Bloodlines are more combat-focused than they are in the pen and paper version.

Does that mean that VTM is not an RPG?

 

[SkeleTony]

In RQ certain skills having to do with bodily movement/maneuvering(including stealth, dodge etc.) as well as magic skills, were penalized with encumbrance.

In truth, stealth is less affected by encumberance than the fact that plate armor is made of shiny metal and goes CLANK CLINGLE CLUNK as you move, and is thus extremely stealth-defeating, regardless of how heavy it actually is (not very, when you're actually used to wearing it). However, no matter how accustomed you are to clanking around in armor, it is never stealthy. Steps can be taken to mitigate this, but it will still never qualify as stealthy.

Yes but that is an irrelevant conclusion fallacy. The 'Encumbrance' status itself takes into account how "shiny" and "noisy" armor is to an extent and there are other rules to account for these micromanagement details as well. My above was just part of a stripped down explanation, not an essay on RPG rules systems and how they work in every situation.