Hit Points are not completely dumb... But the name of Hit Points is dumb.

The name implies Meat Points. The systems that use it work on the engine of tracking them 99% of the time through combat and attacks, spell damage, curative healing, etc. so this further implies Meat Points. To try and explain them away as anything other than Meat Points requires a renaming of Hit Points to something else... Grit, Stamina, Tenacity... Something else that shifts the focus away from Meat Being Hit and Healed.

The name Hit Points is just a really bad name.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on March 25, 2022, 07:33:31 AM

Quote from: Jaeger on March 24, 2022, 11:28:43 PM

Quote from: Charon's Little Helper on March 24, 2022, 04:25:25 PM
...
It's like how round-robin initiative isn't perfect, but it works pretty well, and you should have a specific purpose in mind before you use something else.
...

Round robin Initiative is the #1 culprit that slows down combat at the table. It's horrible.

Now if we're talking about side based initiative; Yes: you should have a specific purpose in mind before you use something else.

I hesitated to make that point, but since you did I'll back it up.

Ew.  I've always found the benefits of individual initiative to be worth the time it takes.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on March 25, 2022, 05:24:04 PM

Quote from: tenbones on March 25, 2022, 04:39:26 PMPeople look at HP as an absolute value for that PC. ...as those silly memes that have emerged at our tables and from stories (or satirized like Backstabbing with a ballista or whatever) the rules are interpreted typically more literal than intended.

So would you say that the problem is that what was intended as primarily a Gamist element of the rules is now inextricably entwined with an effective widespread perception of it as a Simulationist element?

Not answering for Tenbones of course, but for me the issue is that I _want_ hit points to simulate something.  The less connected the mechanics are to to the game fiction, the less connected I am to the game.

Quote from: RebelSky on March 25, 2022, 06:24:23 PM
Hit Points are not completely dumb... But the name of Hit Points is dumb.

The name implies Meat Points. The systems that use it work on the engine of tracking them 99% of the time through combat and attacks, spell damage, curative healing, etc. so this further implies Meat Points. To try and explain them away as anything other than Meat Points requires a renaming of Hit Points to something else... Grit, Stamina, Tenacity... Something else that shifts the focus away from Meat Being Hit and Healed.

The name Hit Points is just a really bad name.

I have already covered this before to some extend or another in various posts, but you can't really address the issues with HP by redefining what they mean or changing their name. At the end of the day, regardless of what you might call them or claim they represent, you're still going to use them to track damage from physical attacks that are going to inflict damage proportional to the severity of physical injuries they cause. With more devastating attacks capable of causing more grievous injuries (in strictly physical, life threatening terms) inflicting more damage than weaker attacks capable of only lesser injuries.

ALL of that implies "Meat Points", not just the name. The entire structure of how combat and damage operates assumes that we're dealing with physical injuries. Because when you strike an enemy with a sword you're not trying to drain their stamina or reduce the amount of "Risk" they can take in battle before a deadly strike finally hits. You're trying to wound them with your weapon. And the reason that sword causes more damage than a dagger is because a sword is a larger melee weapon with a longer cutting edge capable of generating greater physical force.

All this redefining of terms is just mental gymnastics no more capable of addressing the problem than redefining words changes anything in any other area of life (like the word "woman", which apparently no longer means human female). Changing the meaning of words doesn't change reality. And the reality is that we're dealing with physical damage. So that means that Hit Points mean Meat Points.

Even to the degree that you might argue that there are Plot Armor elements to them, or that they entail to some degree or another the ability to minimize the impact of physical hits (all of which I'm willing to accept to some extend), we're still dealing with physical hits. So trying to erase the "Meat Points" element to them is about as effective as trying to cover the sky with your hands. All you're doing is fooling yourself into believing that reality changed because you changed the terms you're using or their meaning.

No, hit points are not dumb.

Quote from: tenbones on March 25, 2022, 04:39:26 PMAnd this is why that "whiff" factor has never had a solid feel for HP. People look at HP as an absolute value for that PC. People can abstract it all they want - but until D&D starts imparting deathspiral mechanics for HP loss, it will never be really perceived this way by the masses - yes, because of Video Games.

How about implementing HP bleed? Taking strenuous actions would reduce HP by a prescribed amount and incoming attacks would receive bonus damage. Bookkeeping could be minimized by filling out an HP tracking table with check boxes for available HP and the corresponding bleed penalty at time of level up. When taking damage check off the corresponding number of boxes and add the appropriate penalty from the lowest box.

Quote from: VisionStorm on March 25, 2022, 07:26:14 PMALL of that implies "Meat Points", not just the name. The entire structure of how combat and damage operates assumes that we're dealing with physical injuries. Because when you strike an enemy with a sword you're not trying to drain their stamina or reduce the amount of "Risk" they can take in battle before a deadly strike finally hits. You're trying to wound them with your weapon. And the reason that sword causes more damage than a dagger is because a sword is a larger melee weapon with a longer cutting edge capable of generating greater physical force.

Yes, and no. Combat is about rendering the enemy combat ineffective by reducing their certain number to zero though different actions that reduce said number by a specified amount. If morale penalties or a successful intimidation reduced that number instead of affecting something else, then said number could not be a meat measure. As long as the name implies meat, then non-meat effects cannot be applied to it and its meat meter status is reinforced. Conversely, only renaming it without any other changes will have no effect, because there was no mechanical effect to be had.

Quote from: VisionStorm on March 25, 2022, 07:26:14 PM
Even to the degree that you might argue that there are Plot Armor elements to them, or that they entail to some degree or another the ability to minimize the impact of physical hits (all of which I'm willing to accept to some extend), we're still dealing with physical hits. So trying to erase the "Meat Points" element to them is about as effective as trying to cover the sky with your hands. All you're doing is fooling yourself into believing that reality changed because you changed the terms you're using or their meaning.

I don't think it's impossible; but changing the name and how you describe the mechanic are definitely needed.

In my system's case PC's have Edge; a pool of points that they spend to evade damage. This is reinforced by describing them right alongside the two other spendable resources that PC's have; Focus and Reserves.

Both of those are spent to make things happen, so it reinforces the "you are choosing to spend this" rather than "this is being subtracted by the hit."

Further, Reserves are much more linked to physical injury in the rules as they get lost from being dropped to zero Edge and from remaining in the dying condition.

The system also has optional physical injuries (head, arm, leg and internal/torso) that do not interact with Edge at all (but some prevent recovering Reserves).

Rules tweaks that resulted in also spending amounts of Edge when you failed non-combat physical tasks in order to avoid more severe consequences also reinforces that Edge isn't meant to be seen as damage taken, but as damage evaded by its expenditure.

Non-magic fear-based combat talents could also require targets to spend Edge to avoid fleeing, fainting or playing dead when their Edge drops to 0. Mass combat with mooks spreads any excess damage on a mook to any nearby mooks and those that hit 0 from that damage are also presumed to have fled the battle (*sees other mook cleaved in two by PC* "Frak this! I'm out!" *runs*).

All those combined were enough that the majority of my playtesters did not think of Edge as physical injury points.

This was important since I fully incorporated the 4E warlord concept into the system where an inspiring leader can trigger your ability to Rally (i.e. spending a Reserve and possibly Focus to regain Edge) without needing to spend your actions. Why? Because outside of properties specifically invoking D&D, having injury healing holy men in the hero group and magical healing in general are pretty damned rare... maybe you find a reclusive healer or a temple or something, but if you're looking to emulate settings outside of D&D, non-magical recovery of your key fighting resources is probably going to be pretty important for setting emulation.

Quote from: Chris24601 on March 25, 2022, 11:16:08 PM

Quote from: VisionStorm on March 25, 2022, 07:26:14 PM
Even to the degree that you might argue that there are Plot Armor elements to them, or that they entail to some degree or another the ability to minimize the impact of physical hits (all of which I'm willing to accept to some extend), we're still dealing with physical hits. So trying to erase the "Meat Points" element to them is about as effective as trying to cover the sky with your hands. All you're doing is fooling yourself into believing that reality changed because you changed the terms you're using or their meaning.

I don't think it's impossible; but changing the name and how you describe the mechanic are definitely needed.

In my system's case PC's have Edge; a pool of points that they spend to evade damage. This is reinforced by describing them right alongside the two other spendable resources that PC's have; Focus and Reserves.

Both of those are spent to make things happen, so it reinforces the "you are choosing to spend this" rather than "this is being subtracted by the hit."

Further, Reserves are much more linked to physical injury in the rules as they get lost from being dropped to zero Edge and from remaining in the dying condition.

The system also has optional physical injuries (head, arm, leg and internal/torso) that do not interact with Edge at all (but some prevent recovering Reserves).

Rules tweaks that resulted in also spending amounts of Edge when you failed non-combat physical tasks in order to avoid more severe consequences also reinforces that Edge isn't meant to be seen as damage taken, but as damage evaded by its expenditure.

Non-magic fear-based combat talents could also require targets to spend Edge to avoid fleeing, fainting or playing dead when their Edge drops to 0. Mass combat with mooks spreads any excess damage on a mook to any nearby mooks and those that hit 0 from that damage are also presumed to have fled the battle (*sees other mook cleaved in two by PC* "Frak this! I'm out!" *runs*).

All those combined were enough that the majority of my playtesters did not think of Edge as physical injury points.

This was important since I fully incorporated the 4E warlord concept into the system where an inspiring leader can trigger your ability to Rally (i.e. spending a Reserve and possibly Focus to regain Edge) without needing to spend your actions. Why? Because outside of properties specifically invoking D&D, having injury healing holy men in the hero group and magical healing in general are pretty damned rare... maybe you find a reclusive healer or a temple or something, but if you're looking to emulate settings outside of D&D, non-magical recovery of your key fighting resources is probably going to be pretty important for setting emulation.

Just want to say that all this sounds really cool. 

Quote from: Jaeger on March 24, 2022, 11:28:43 PMI'm a bit surprised no OSR games in the E6 spirit have been made.

Lots of OSR games only have 10 levels. Considering the power creep of 3e, the 10th level PC in S&W: White Box isn't notably more powerful than the 3e 6th level PC.

Quote from: Spinachcat on March 26, 2022, 05:35:42 AM

Quote from: Jaeger on March 24, 2022, 11:28:43 PMI'm a bit surprised no OSR games in the E6 spirit have been made.

Lots of OSR games only have 10 levels. Considering the power creep of 3e, the 10th level PC in S&W: White Box isn't notably more powerful than the 3e 6th level PC.

It does certainly help in keeping potential bloat down. I kept my own system to 15 levels with most having 25 Edge to start that grows to 95 by level 15. Mooks, by contrast range from about 5-10 points. Really threatening monsters have numbers ranging from those of PCs to elites and champions with 2-4 times that.

In terms of what those numbers mean, most mooks do about 2-5 with a hit. Actual monsters scale from about 8-12 per hit from a standard level 1 monster to about 36-55 for a level 18 monster (monsters can have higher levels than PCs).

Of related note; attack and defense modifers remain pretty consistent across the PC level range. The theory behind that is that once you reach a certain level of proficiency it's more about how well you can exploit an opponent's openings when they happen. A failed attack just means there was no good opening to exploit that round (though some class abilities and talents allow for damage on miss or without needing to make a roll at all... reflecting tactics that are especially tiring to evade by spending Edge even when you're doing everything right).

What scales is damage done when there is an opening and Edge burnt to avoid the opening being exploited. So even low level mooks in sufficient numbers can threaten a high level PC (essentially attacking until the PC tires and then a telling blow is landed) and, by contrast, the massed mook rules allow the PC's excess damage against low level mooks to spread to nearby ones who if "dropped" are deciding to flee for their lives.

I chose the numbers I did because they were the smallest increments where I could achieve the balance I wanted between monster attacks that were light but accurate attacks and massive but easier to avoid attacks relative to PC strength. Spreadsheets were involved in calculating the original values and I make no apologies for it (the result is that GM's wanting to make their own monsters in the system just have an easy table to reference).

The level limit though definitely helps keep those numbers in check.

Quote from: Wisithir on March 25, 2022, 11:05:40 PMCombat is about rendering the enemy combat ineffective by reducing their certain number to zero though different actions that reduce said number by a specified amount.

That's not really what combat is about and not all systems even use a number you have to reduce to zero, nor is that the sole mechanic that can or should be used to handle every eventuality that could reduce an opponent's effectiveness in combat.

The problem with this argument is that you're refuting something I said that has concrete backing in terms of how things already operate in most games that use HP on the basis of additional extraneous elements you would like to add on top of HP that are not necessarily interrelated, and can, and already are, handled through different mechanics in various systems. And there's no reason they need to be handled through the exact same mechanic that's used to track physical damage, specifically, as opposed to something else.

Could HP be used to track psychological factors, like intimidation and morale, on top of tracking physical injuries? I guess. But is that truly their purpose, and do we HAVE to use that mechanic specifically do track these things? All of this stuff is already handled through things like Saving Throws/Resistance Rolls and Opposed Skill Checks, or even Morale checks from older editions of D&D, which are more effective at handling fleeing enemies that are too afraid or demoralized to continue fighting, but still perfectly capable of taking a beating if cornered, or coming back later that same day.

Just because you could further abstract HP more than they already are in order to incorporate all these disparate elements into a single mechanic doesn't mean that you should. All that would accomplish is further muddy the distinction between all these elements and complicate things further by lumping a bunch of disparate elements that represent completely different things and take completely different measures to recover from into a single stat. Physical injuries can have lasting effects that could take days, or even weeks or months to recover from, if recovery is even a possibility at all. Being demoralized can be fixed in a matter of minutes or hours by just taking a breather once you're in a safe location. Those two things are in no way analogous to each other, and just because both could potentially end a fight that doesn't mean that they have to use the same mechanic or that doing so would be effective or not cause further logical inconsistencies.

A fleeing enemy could come back again later that same day, maybe even in less than an hour. A dead or seriously wounded enemy that's been incapacitated by their injuries can't. And an enemy that's been wounded but not incapacitated is far closer to dying than a demoralized but completely uninjured* one coming back to fight. Lumping all those concepts together only makes it more difficult to represent any of those things.

*EDIT: I wrote "injured" originally when I meant to say the complete opposite. 

Quote from: Chris24601 on March 25, 2022, 11:16:08 PMI don't think it's impossible; but changing the name and how you describe the mechanic are definitely needed.

No they're not. It may work for the way that you prefer to handle your own system, but that doesn't mean that the concept of HP itself has to change for anybody else, or that the things I point out about physical injuries (or the need to track them) aren't an issue. If damage is still based around how deadly an attack or hazard is (in physical, life-threatening terms) then we're still talking about physical injuries, which have some sort of physical impact on the character.

What you describe as "Edge" is basically a Luck Point/Effort mechanic that's heavily used to mitigate damage. And it may have started out as HP abstracted to 11, but that still doesn't change the fact that (from what you describe) they don't quite work the same way or remove the issue of actual physical wounds being tracked. So they aren't really HP conceptually speaking, but something you can use to avoid taking actual HP damage (which I'm guessing is what you call "Reserves") or at least injuries or wounds, assuming that you handle those more as a type of Status Effect, rather than by some numerical figure.

But conceptually speaking, what HP have been used for since their inception, as well as in the vast majority of systems that use them for, is to track physical injuries. And further abstracting what HP are supposed to mean or changing their name doesn't remove that necessity, or the fact that damage from attacks and hazards represents physical injuries of some type. Which implies that somewhere behind what we call "HP" there's "Meat" in there. And the amount of damage inflicted by attacks or hazards represents attempts to get at that "Meat". That you use some extraneous Luck/Effort type mechanic to mitigate the risk or impact of those injuries doesn't change that.

What you want wounds HP to do depends on what your world is running on. Narrativanium, Simulation Juice, or mixes in-between.
There is no perfect system that balances combat taking too long or too short. Each system will have a moment where the villian died 'too fast' or 'too slow'.

Id say HP, the D&D style, works in its own logical universe (that does not make it bad). But I don't think it maps perfectly to neither 'plot' tokens or 'meat' tokens. Both will have their own elements that don't fit.

Because in general beings don't like getting hurt at all. Han Solo may take out more Stormtroopers then he realistically could, but he will still try to retreat and search for cover immediatly if even a group of 3-5 is found or the like. He wouldn't stand around in the open before looking at his HP counter and say 'Oh, I guess its time to go into cover because my plot counter is low'. 'Oh if a Stormtrooper throws a grenade its fine, because I have like 50 hit points left and minion grenades only deal 3d4 damage so Im fine'. Despite being a 'legendary hero' he would not fight his way through any amount of soldiers. Any amount of grenades would warrant a response from him.

Robocop on the other hand has extremly high damage reduction, but if a tank buster is around, he needs to hide immediatly.

Id say hit points (the D&D Kind) match most closley to anime, with its power levels and literal in-universe resource counters. Where fights are literally just battles of endurance. And heroes suddenly getting more power is like a hero point or something.

HP as a risk meter and HP as meat meter are different directions that provide different effects. I think risk is the abstract  approach that needs to incorporate more effects to provide for interesting choices while the meat approach should be more explicitly clear as what it is and what the last combat exchange actually was.

Quote from: VisionStorm on March 26, 2022, 09:39:33 AM
A fleeing enemy could come back again later that same day, maybe even in less than an hour. A dead or seriously wounded enemy that's been incapacitated by their injuries can't. And an enemy that's been wounded but not incapacitated is far closer to dying than a demoralized but completely uninjured* one coming back to fight. Lumping all those concepts together only makes it more difficult to represent any of those things.

Conversely, a fleeing PC could come back again later that same day, maybe even in less than an hour. A dead or seriously wounded PC that's been incapacitated by their injuries can't. And an PC that's been wounded but not incapacitated is far closer to dying than a demoralized but completely uninjured* one coming back to fight.

Meat points can hinder a character continuity campaign by taking PCs out of action but allow for the satisfying and definitive pulping of enemies.  I prefer slightly more abstraction as to allow the GM room to adjudicate instead of "the dice say so," but that is a matter of taste. Meat points for simulation or abstract risk point for narrative or more room to roleplay.

Quote from: Wisithir on March 27, 2022, 12:37:00 AM
HP as a risk meter and HP as meat meter are different directions that provide different effects. I think risk is the abstract  approach that needs to incorporate more effects to provide for interesting choices while the meat approach should be more explicitly clear as what it is and what the last combat exchange actually was.

Quote from: VisionStorm on March 26, 2022, 09:39:33 AM
A fleeing enemy could come back again later that same day, maybe even in less than an hour. A dead or seriously wounded enemy that's been incapacitated by their injuries can't. And an enemy that's been wounded but not incapacitated is far closer to dying than a demoralized but completely uninjured* one coming back to fight. Lumping all those concepts together only makes it more difficult to represent any of those things.

Conversely, a fleeing PC could come back again later that same day, maybe even in less than an hour. A dead or seriously wounded PC that's been incapacitated by their injuries can't. And an PC that's been wounded but not incapacitated is far closer to dying than a demoralized but completely uninjured* one coming back to fight.

Meat points can hinder a character continuity campaign by taking PCs out of action but allow for the satisfying and definitive pulping of enemies.  I prefer slightly more abstraction as to allow the GM room to adjudicate instead of "the dice say so," but that is a matter of taste. Meat points for simulation or abstract risk point for narrative or more room to roleplay.

I tend to prefer some degree of simulation over narrativism, personally. I'm not expecting 1:1 simulation, cuz that would be unlikely and impractical, but at least some semblance of simulation that makes it feel like the game world is an actual world with consequences would be good.

I'm also not a fan of metagame elements or concerns deciding how gameplay or circumstances in the game world unfold. And while PCs being taken out of the action is something I've considered before, that problem will exist with ANY type of damage system, as long as the posibility for death or incapacity is there. And if PCs can't be killed or incapacitated cuz then players have nothing to do, then what's the point of it? Why even have damage systems at all? And where is the element of genuine risk and consequence? I think a better work around is for everyone to have multiple characters, just in case one of them goes down. But sometimes characters die or become incapacitated in almost any system, other than Toon (and even there they get taken out temporarily, IIRC).

I used to hate HP, but one of the main reasons I came around to them is because they're better than Condition Monitor systems with wound levels (Light, Moderate, Serious, etc.) at keeping track of small amounts of cumulative damage that don't immediately kill you, but can stack up over time and are still present and take time to heal nonetheless. But if I'm going to abstract all that away and ignore the reality of minor injuries that still need to be healed, I would much rather get rid of HP entirely and just go with Condition Monitor systems, and maybe remove or minimize the death spiral element, which is the only other thing about them that sucks. Cuz at that point tracking HP becomes useless to me, and Condition Monitor systems do a much better job at tracking the character's current state from a more narrative or descriptive PoV IMO. And even from the PoV of simulation they're better at telling you just how messed up a character is.