So a recent discussion in another thread got me thinking about hit points. Now I like them for what they are, which is quick. I can't think of much faster way to handle damage. They fit a certain style of gaming and abstraction very nicely.

However sometimes you want something with more heft. What is your favorite alternative to hit points and why?

Is there a way to get a higher level of grit and granularity without sacrificing speed and ease?

I personally dig what RuneQuest does, however it can be a little slow in play.

The old Star Wars D20 Vitality/Wound divide was nice, I've borrowed it more than a few times with a few modifications.

I also love hit points for their simplicity. If I had to pick a favorite alternative, I'd probably have to go with the wound levels of games like D6/Mini-Six. It's fast but still provides for individual hits that actually hurt characters rather than just causing a pool of points to be reduced until the character finally keels over.

I would point to Harnmaster but you will sacrifice quite a bit of speed and ease.

You could possibly port the concepts, though, to a much more abstract game. I think from what I've heard about Mutants and Masterminds, and maybe True20, they've done something along those lines.

For years I have been using a Vitality/Wound (I just call it HP/Wound for ease)

We started using in in 2e about 25 years ago. You get a set number of wounds. Normally about 3-8 depending on some stat choices etc (the method to compute varies but generally 3+ Con bonus, or 3 + 1/2 (con and Str Bonus)).
This is your "Meat" it doesn't change unless you gain Con or get bigger.

0 level folks and monsters have no HP they just have wounds.

PCs then gain HPs which are their ability and skill to dodge blow avoid damage and roll with the punches.

In play you work through HP til they run out then you take wounds. (we have played version where you can tak X much from HP then the rest rolls to wounds but it tended to slow stuff down).

HP heal fast. We used to use 10% of your toal HP per hour, now I just say Heal all HP over a short rest, but If I wanted a gritter game I would say 10% of HP over a short rest and all over a long rest.
Wounds heal slowly. You can heal 1 per long rest or 1 per week for a grittier game.
For each Wound you get -1 (or 10% on all those old thieves' skills) on all rolls

Healing - 5 points of HP heal can heal a wound (average of 1d8 which is a cure light)  or for ease 1 Cure light will cure 1 wound.

Optional rules
i) Critical hit - deals a wound on its own as well as normal damage
ii) Assassinations (and variants like stabbing a hostage in the throat) - straight to wounds
iii) fiddle with thief's backstab - in the end this got too tough as a direct to wounds so we just leave as is now, especially in 5e where its already lethal

The game plays just the same. Low level guys have a slightly bigger buffer.
Because wounds are low you rarely need to worry about tracking penalties for any of the bad guys. Then tend to surrender or die after being wounded.

I think there is a reason most computer games use hit points. It's just simplest all around.

Though with that said, I also prefer Vitality/Wound points, which actually appeared in an old White Dwarf, issue #15, so it's arguably quite an old school concept.

The D6 wound levels really aren't that different than hit points (as using hit points in D6 is an option found in the D6 Space/Adventure/Fantasy books shows), it's just less ablative,granular.  But mathematically it works out the same in the long run, so it's just the appearance of a difference..

Quote from: JeremyR;841830The D6 wound levels really aren't that different than hit points (as using hit points in D6 is an option found in the D6 Space/Adventure/Fantasy books shows), it's just less ablative,granular.  But mathematically it works out the same in the long run, so it's just the appearance of a difference..

One significant difference from most hit point systems is stuns and wounds in D6 give the target penalties, whereas many hit point systems do not- they use the everything is fine until  hit points reach zero when it stops working altogether.

Pendragon is a bit of a compromise between damage in Runequest and the simpler D&D model. It sacrifices hit locations but it still includes major wounds that cause problems before hit points reach zero.

Quote from: Arkansan;841795However sometimes you want something with more heft. What is your favorite alternative to hit points and why?

Is there a way to get a higher level of grit and granularity without sacrificing speed and ease?

I personally dig what RuneQuest does, however it can be a little slow in play.

To be honest: D&D-style  Hitpoints with no intended negative consequences for actual wounds suck. It may be simple, but this mechanic is so abstract that it lacks almost any interconnection to the  dangers, excitement and bloodlust that a combat in a fictional medium should provide.
 
Also, it is not the speed of play that is important, it is the intensity and excitement that matters. A quicker resolution mechanics only truly needed to prevent that the game flow begins to stutter (and that is largely dependent on the attention span of the involved players; if you play with the kind of guys who get instantly bored if they are notthe centre of the action and attention, a very quick resolution mechanic can be a good idea).

When it comes to events in the game, it is always the quality, not the quantity that matters. A single slow, but intense, enthralling and equally challenging and rewarding combat is infintely superior to a going-through-the-motions, standardised and prepackaged, "balanced" encounter for the sake to fulfill the intended exploration to combat ratio.

Sure, the development of interesting fights is at least as much a result of thoughtful gamemastering - creating an interesting environment, interesting opponents, relevant goals for both sides and so on - as is the underlying set of rules. However, it is quite a bit easier to have truly great battles with accordingly suitable rules instead of despite them.

Depending on your prefered degree of abstraction, there are several good damage systems: Runequest and GURPS both offers a good compromise between simple hit points and a framework of what they actually mean, the hit locations offer additional grit and since injuries matter, the system requires the players to play a bit more careful and a lot smarter.

HarnMaster does not use hitpoints; separate wounds are treated separately for most effects (excluding bloodloss and overall trouble) and the concrete effects of wound shock in this game can be quite a bit unpredictable (which is good; predictability is a basic ingredient of boredom, after all). However, HarnMaster is very concrete and since injuries truly suck (especially if they get inflamed) and dying is actually not that easy, the system provides very visceral, quite brutal results for all-out fights. And memorable ones: In the first HarnMaster combat I ever played  - back in '95 or '96 - one of the characters not even mine scored a critical hit with his mace into his opponent's groin, leading to severe shock and severe bleeding. I still remember this.  

My currenly most played system, Blue Planet, offers a similar system of treating each wound as a separate problem, but is otherwise quite abstract: There are no hit locations, wounds have simplythree tiers (light, seríous, critical), and while the penalties due to wounds add up, they aren't getting increasingly lethal in the death of a thousand papercuts style: Light Wounds are just painful, serious wounds can knock you out, critical wounds can kill you. I like this system a lot. It is so abstract that you can easily fill it with a specific meaning and interpretation of the wounds giving them context within the game, while the rules are also so concrete that such a contextualized interpretation actually mean something and have a certain gravitas.

Hit points serve a certain function and they are not always the right fit for all games.

A lot depends on the role that combat plays within the game as a whole. In original D&D, the combat rules were designed as simple and quick method to resolve conflicts that wouldn't take too much time away from the primary activity of exploration and treasure hunting.

Abstracted hit points, static defenses via AC, simple morale checks , etc. are all evidence that combat was something to be quickly resolved rather than dealt with in depth.

I would say over 90% of the complaints about D&D over the years would be centered on wanting to still play D&D but also wanting combat in the system to be something it was never designed to be.

A game designed with the intention of combat being this vehicle for dramatic tension and one of the primary focuses of play isn't going to resemble D&D  much at all. So really, the concept of hit points is only ONE of many issues when designing a combat system for such a game.

So before deciding to use hit points or something else, look at the combat system as a whole first. What role does combat play in the game? Is it something to be resolved quickly and abstractly, or is it a primary activity within the game?

Only by answering that question can the utility of hit points be determined.

Wound levels can work fine. I don't think they are superior to Hit Points, but they work as an alternative for stuff like WoD and D6.

I used to do the Wound / Vitality thing too, but I found myself not getting anything out of the added complexity.

If I had to name a favorite wound system, it would probably be Warhamer Fantasy 1e. There is the HP grind down, but the finale is a bloody gory mess.

I've wanted to port over something like Interlock's Health track system. Essentially everyone has the same number of health boxes, 4 for each stage (Light, Serious, Critical, Mortal, Mortal 1, etc). Each condition gave penalties as well as called for Stun saves with increasing difficulty.

So in D&D you could either assign HP to these stages evenly, or modify the HP/Stage based on class+con bonus.

GRANTED - all this does is make players realize that combat is dangerous and there's no fighting at 100% efficiency until you hit zero-health. Every hit matters. And for some people this is a turnoff.

I kinda like it. But it's not for every campaign.

I have a huge problem with any penalty-based system.  And that is that there's two ways it can go.  

The first is that one person scores an early hit.  Whether by luck, surprise, whatever.  Then the combat is basically over, because you have less chance to hit, and more chance to be hit, so it's not getting better from here.  Which is fine if that's what you want, but it's not how I tend to like my fantasy.

The second is both sides take penalties, but apply to only attacks.  It looks better, because it doesn't have the double-sided penalty, but leads to the combat eventually dragging to a halt.

Liked one system I saw where you had a small number of wounds but gained power when you took them, and I really like that "HP as buffer, wounds once HP runs out" system above, but in general hate that "wounds make everything suck" thing.

Like hit location charts though.  Hit in the arm, hard to wield big weapons, etc.  Usually takes forever in play.

Kind of just like hit points, they just work.

Yeah you'd have to make some adjustments, definitely. Cyberpunk is a pretty lethal game. Probably why I've never done it.

The basic assumptions of D&D pretty much mean the closest you can go is HP/Wounds and jick the rules around that. Fantasycraft does this, and does it very well. Some of the outcomes of that system are that Sneakattacks dice are lower (because they go to Wounds). But when you Crit - it goes to Wounds too.

I'm still considering just going the opposite direction and do D&D with FASERIP.

Quote from: GreyICE;841979I have a huge problem with any penalty-based system.  And that is that there's two ways it can go.  

The first is that one person scores an early hit.  Whether by luck, surprise, whatever.  Then the combat is basically over, because you have less chance to hit, and more chance to be hit, so it's not getting better from here.

That is what I like to call death-spiral effect. Some systems suffer from it more than others, but it is a geniune problem. Also, I don't like keeping track of too many things.

To the idea of getting bonuses as you're wounded: :forge:

Effects don't have to be long-lasting. In The Fantasy Trip if you take 5 damage you're at -2 to attack for two turns. So there's an incentive to use all-out defense until the penalty wears off. Take 8 and you fall down, but you can get up. Iirc any hit also lets the attacker force you back. It's true that underneath it all it's still an ablative hp system, and you do hit a death spiral when you get down to 3 hp.

I don't mind the whole "death spiral" thing as often it doesn't mean you can't turn it around just that it isn't likely.

The first flush shot often is a game changer, at least in unarmed combat, I would think that would be even more true in armed combat.

Now I like things that rest closer on the simulation side of abstraction, however there really isn't anything wrong with any approach as long as it suits the game and the group.