Are stupid people stupid?

Sadly yes as we get once again page after page of the usual suspects bitchfesting about HP.

Quote from: Omega on March 20, 2022, 12:47:24 PM
Are stupid people stupid?

Sadly yes as we get once again page after page of the usual suspects bitchfesting about HP.

Welcome to the internet. You must be new here.

Quote from: Omega on March 20, 2022, 12:47:24 PM
Are stupid people stupid?

Riveting addition to the conversation. Nobody here actually said HP is worthless as a system.
I mean even the OP was about discussion of how to mod the existing HP system to hsve more threat.

Is anything short of rabid support for HP not good enough to qualify as "smart"?

I mean, are other alternatives even POSSIBLE?

Arneson added HP, IIRC, because players got attached to PCs and didn't want them dying in a single hit.

No RPG I can remember kills PCs with a single hit (except Cthulhu Dark?).

Then there are WOUNDS, which are inverse HP (e.g., shadow of the demon lord). Maybe fixed HP for some games I can't remember. Then there is HP PLUS something (stamina, luck, etc). Or some attribute (Constitution etc.) that basically works like HP.

Maybe the only alternative I can think of is differentiated wounds (a light wound being different than a grave wound, etc.), which adds complexity to the game.

So, are HP dumb compared to what? Maybe wounds?

I don't see many options in 99% of the RPGs I play.

Apparently, what is being defended here is "increasing HP with level to represent defense", instead of increasing AC (and maybe increasing saves MORE).

Which is... eh... mostly a matter of taste (and genre).

Quote from: Chris24601 on March 19, 2022, 06:14:08 AM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on March 19, 2022, 04:13:24 AM

Quote from: Chris24601 on March 18, 2022, 10:50:53 PM
My only complaint about hit points is that, because of all the misinterpretations of them coupled with all sorts of video games that depicted hit point loss as taking an axe to the guy complete with massive sprays of blood... that the term has become almost synonymous with "meat points" and every attempt I've ever made to tailor mechanics based on their stamina, skill, luck and morale aspects has resulted in so much pushback (i.e. how can someone restore hit points by inspiring someone to dig deep and keep fighting? a rousing speech can't reattach someone's hand... never mind there were no rules for dismemberment in combat in the system).

Basically, the only time I've been able to get people to embrace the hit point concept in a form that is closer to how they were originally intended was to call them something else.

It doesn't help that D&D in the rules wordings, reinforces the idea of hit points as meat points.
Heal, Potion of healing, Cure Light Wounds...

Indeed. Since the points in my system are predominantly stamina+morale, the primary means of recovery are the Rally (which is proportional to the subject and which "healing" abilities trigger more efficiently than PCs doing it themselves) and the potion version is "potion of vitality."

Another important point though is one of the big problems with hit points being equated with meat is the level scaling of defenses that WotC D&D fell into. When AC is mostly static, then it's easier to present increased hit points as improved skill and stamina. You have more points you can go longer in a fight without suffering a serious injury, but can still be overwhelmed by sufficient numbers because your AC is not so high that you can't be hit.

But with scaling AC it was harder to do that because the rising AC's explanation was said be improved parrying/dodging skill (whereas those were a part of hit points in pre-WotC D&D). It also quickly rendered the prospect of losing to even hordes of mooks a virtual impossibility... feeding the superhero/MMO aspects where an orc army that could raze the continent "cons grey" to the PCs and so can't actually be credibly be claimed as a threat.

It likewise means that certain monsters necessarily "con red" meaning PCs basically can't even attempt to fight them because their defenses are so high.

The thing that I think really broke hit points was adding the defense axis to make survival quadratic. A level 10 PC didn't just have 10x the hit points, their defenses were also 10 points higher so instead of the orcs needing a 15 on the die to hit you, they now can only hit on a natural 20 so you're getting hit 6 times less often.

WotC broke a lot of things when they made 3e because, to paraphrase Chesterton, they didn't actually understand why the wall was built. Hit Points was just one of them.

No offense Chris24601 but there is no edition of DnD where Orcs are a credible threat to a level 10 PC.

The main problem is people trying to make Orcs into credible enemies when the PCs should be fighting those creatures that were previously con red.

Most of my problems with Hit Points are tuning issues and not fundamental concerns. There are too many Hit Points, which leads to a lot of math and tedious bookkeeping, and the Death Spiral is weak to nonexistent.

The opposite is, of course, wounds a la Savage Worlds. I would say this isn't less faulted so much as having opposite faults; the bookeeping is very streamlined, but you can't emulate glancing blows, and the death spiral in Savage Worlds is exceptionally aggressive. Going too far the other way on all counts doesn't fix the problems, but in this case it does make a more generally usable system.

If you can't tell, I prefer to wind up between these two extremes. Except for Death Spirals; I can appreciate why some players and game designers like them, but I really would prefer that particular mechanic to die in a corner, at least if all you're going for is a vanilla "you get worse as you get hit" implementation.

If you are only talking about a bare-bones game which the game designer hasn't spent time optimizing, wound systems are far superior because they're inherently streamlined. A streamlined game pops out with little effort. That said, I do think that if you took some efforts to streamline out some of the arithmetic and bookkeeping, Hit Points are closer to the ideal. It's just that it takes significantly more design homework to get there.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on March 20, 2022, 03:32:29 PM
I mean, are other alternatives even POSSIBLE?

Arneson added HP, IIRC, because players got attached to PCs and didn't want them dying in a single hit.

No RPG I can remember kills PCs with a single hit (except Cthulhu Dark?).

Rolemaster's infamous crit system.
It's not likely, but it's possible. And the argument can be made that however unlikely, combat should be dangerous like that.

QuoteThen there are WOUNDS, which are inverse HP (e.g., shadow of the demon lord). Maybe fixed HP for some games I can't remember. Then there is HP PLUS something (stamina, luck, etc). Or some attribute (Constitution etc.) that basically works like HP.

Maybe the only alternative I can think of is differentiated wounds (a light wound being different than a grave wound, etc.), which adds complexity to the game.

So, are HP dumb compared to what? Maybe wounds?

I don't see many options in 99% of the RPGs I play.

Apparently, what is being defended here is "increasing HP with level to represent defense", instead of increasing AC (and maybe increasing saves MORE).

Which is... eh... mostly a matter of taste (and genre).

If I were going to make a system without hit points, I think I'd go with a wound system. Break damage down into a management set of categories, and have each type of wound apply an effect.
Like, slashed tendon, cut wrist, gut wound, etc. Each wound would accumulate a death save. Very unlikely to start, but becomes more likely the more wounds you suffer.
I'd have to work on it. That's just an outline.

Quote from: Fheredin on March 20, 2022, 04:16:37 PM
Most of my problems with Hit Points are tuning issues and not fundamental concerns. There are too many Hit Points, which leads to a lot of math and tedious bookkeeping, and the Death Spiral is weak to nonexistent.

The opposite is, of course, wounds a la Savage Worlds. I would say this isn't less faulted so much as having opposite faults; the bookeeping is very streamlined, but you can't emulate glancing blows, and the death spiral in Savage Worlds is exceptionally aggressive. Going too far the other way on all counts doesn't fix the problems, but in this case it does make a more generally usable system.

If you can't tell, I prefer to wind up between these two extremes. Except for Death Spirals; I can appreciate why some players and game designers like them, but I really would prefer that particular mechanic to die in a corner, at least if all you're going for is a vanilla "you get worse as you get hit" implementation.

If you are only talking about a bare-bones game which the game designer hasn't spent time optimizing, wound systems are far superior because they're inherently streamlined. A streamlined game pops out with little effort. That said, I do think that if you took some efforts to streamline out some of the arithmetic and bookkeeping, Hit Points are closer to the ideal. It's just that it takes significantly more design homework to get there.

I also prefer streamlined systems. What I would like is a system that can both simulate glancing blows and abstracts attack/damage/defense/soak/etc into a single roll.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on March 20, 2022, 07:18:47 PM

Quote from: Fheredin on March 20, 2022, 04:16:37 PM
Most of my problems with Hit Points are tuning issues and not fundamental concerns. There are too many Hit Points, which leads to a lot of math and tedious bookkeeping, and the Death Spiral is weak to nonexistent.

The opposite is, of course, wounds a la Savage Worlds. I would say this isn't less faulted so much as having opposite faults; the bookeeping is very streamlined, but you can't emulate glancing blows, and the death spiral in Savage Worlds is exceptionally aggressive. Going too far the other way on all counts doesn't fix the problems, but in this case it does make a more generally usable system.

If you can't tell, I prefer to wind up between these two extremes. Except for Death Spirals; I can appreciate why some players and game designers like them, but I really would prefer that particular mechanic to die in a corner, at least if all you're going for is a vanilla "you get worse as you get hit" implementation.

If you are only talking about a bare-bones game which the game designer hasn't spent time optimizing, wound systems are far superior because they're inherently streamlined. A streamlined game pops out with little effort. That said, I do think that if you took some efforts to streamline out some of the arithmetic and bookkeeping, Hit Points are closer to the ideal. It's just that it takes significantly more design homework to get there.

I also prefer streamlined systems. What I would like is a system that can both simulate glancing blows and abstracts attack/damage/defense/soak/etc into a single roll.

RPG Pundit Presents could probably do a random table for that.

Quote from: Mishihari on March 19, 2022, 01:46:30 PM
Hit points are a great mechanic for making the game fun.  They're terrible for representing anything that actually happens in real life.  Finding a mechanic that does both is hard, which is why we're still arguing about it 50 years later.

This applies to many D&D Mechanics like AC and Saves. Playability was more important to Gygax than realism. Judging by the continued success of HP it seems many agree.

Quote from: RPGPundit on March 20, 2022, 01:18:17 AM

Quote from: Cat the Bounty Smuggler on March 19, 2022, 01:26:42 AM
Hit points are the worst way to track damage, except for all those other ways that have been tried from time to time.

Correct.

Only if you don't place a premium on realism.

Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on March 20, 2022, 08:09:39 PM

Quote from: RPGPundit on March 20, 2022, 01:18:17 AM

Quote from: Cat the Bounty Smuggler on March 19, 2022, 01:26:42 AM
Hit points are the worst way to track damage, except for all those other ways that have been tried from time to time.

Correct.

Only if you don't place a premium on realism.

We can do realistic but its not going to be fast or fun and there maybe a seperate dysentery table involved

Quote from: Ruprecht on March 20, 2022, 07:50:06 PM
Judging by the continued success of HP it seems many agree.

I would say it really depends on the effect one desires to achieve. A CON score worth of HP is about as deadly as Savage Worlds while about double that feels Storyteller deadly with about 5 damaging hits to KO. Substantially more HP turns into an ablation contest with nothing at stake for a while. Dying is not fun, but neither is trading blows for no effect. The latter may be cinematic, but cinema is meant to be watched, not played. Two juggernauts duking it out and thrashing the city looks great, but plays like "Well, that did not do much." Critical Hits being a differentiator just leads to the Star Wars d20 problem of keep spamming attacks in hopes of critting to wound.

When it comes to d20 style Hit Points, my preference will go to Know Your Role's Endurance/Trauma system. Something happens, for one or the other combatant, to reduce endurance with every offensive action while particularly nasty injuries cause Trauma.

Quote from: Shasarak on March 20, 2022, 08:21:00 PM

Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on March 20, 2022, 08:09:39 PM

Quote from: RPGPundit on March 20, 2022, 01:18:17 AM

Quote from: Cat the Bounty Smuggler on March 19, 2022, 01:26:42 AM
Hit points are the worst way to track damage, except for all those other ways that have been tried from time to time.

Correct.

Only if you don't place a premium on realism.

We can do realistic but its not going to be fast or fun and there maybe a seperate dysentery table involved

Greetings!

Yeah, Shasarak! *Laughing* I agree. The alleged goal of reaching for increased "Realism" in D&D--in whatever category--often inevitably leads to unplayable results encompassing far too much tediousness and bookkeeping, and ultimately embraces a stupefying point or subsystem "solution" that represents a dynamic of diminishing returns.

There are very good reasons for embracing a simplistic abstraction, like Hit Points.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Shasarak on March 20, 2022, 08:21:00 PM
We can do realistic but its not going to be fast or fun and there maybe a seperate dysentery table involved

Simulation is a goal onto itself, generally separate from playability. Emulation is far more important. Does it feel like whatever it is intend to feel like or not. I do not find high HP combat to be fast or fun. With the risk buffer filled up, there is no tension to the action and it feels inconsequential. Perhaps HP is better off in two pools, a per encounter and a per day. Any adventurer can go one encounter, but a seasoned one can refill the encounter risk buffer from the daily risk allowance to "safely" fight all day. Each fight can risk a knock out and mission failure, but not character death unless the enemies execute the fallen PC after combat.