Forgive me for not having read the entire thread. I did read the first post.

I have toyed with the thought of using a fatigue system, which is much the same as a hitpoint system, except that the character has a Wounds level equal to 3 plus Constitution modifier. Once the character is completely fatigued (has run out of fatigue points) is when things get truly dangerous. Any hit after that point inflicts 1 Wound (a perfect time to use the injury charts from Adventurer Conqueror King System). Once a character has reduced their Wounds to 0, then they begin dying. Fatigue can be recovered overnight in most cases, but wounds are permanent unless a healer is sought out immediately.

This system is based (in part) on fights from the cinematic universe. Fighters can keep going and going and going until they get tired or something gets through their defenses (a critical hit perhaps?) Other classes get tired more easily, not used to fighting. Under this system, the mystical curing of wounds is a restoration of valor and willpower, restoring fatigue points.

Quote from: VisionStorm on March 22, 2022, 01:16:44 PM
I haven't really played SW, but I'd much rather have some sort of "Luck/Effort*" mechanic that you can use to soak damage or boost you defenses to outright avoid getting hit as an option than blending it all into a single pool. Because those points can be used for other stuff as well, and their primarily function isn't to soak damage (that's just an option), so they're not really the same thing as tracking HP with extra steps.

*I prefer to think of this type of resource as "Effort", and perhaps use it to activate powers and such as well, if they exist in the game. That way you have one Health/HP pool, and one Effort/Power pool to do cool stuff or add extra juice to your rolls (not just soak damage).

Well Chris"s personal system operates on a 3 resource dynamic that works like that, but SW bennies are actually also used for more than soaking. Including rerolling defenses, attacks, initiative, as well as fueling powers.

SW is deathspiraly, but actually harming characters is pretty hard. Getting wounded is more the disengagement point then a mandatory thing like taking hp damage.

Quote from: Chris24601 on March 22, 2022, 11:14:45 AM
Likewise, if they were just meat, why does it take longer for the 5th level fighter with 1hp remaining to recover to full than a 1st level fighter to do the same?

I wonder.

Suppose for the moment the rule were that you get to recover three-and-a-half percent of your max hit points per each full day of bed rest. Because if it's based on a percentage of max hit points, then it will take the same amount of time to heal from half to full hit points for anyone, no matter how many hit points they have. 1st level fighter, 5th level fighter, 15th level fighter, all the same.

Where do I get this strange percentage?

1E stipulates that any character can be restored to full hit points given 4 weeks of bed rest. No matter how many. That's 100% restored, divided by 28 days, gets you ~3.57% restored per day.

Well, the first problem we run into is we're going to have all these fractions of hit points we have to add up daily. Solution? Drop the fractions. Deal only in whole numbers.

If we do that, the next problem is that most characters (anyone < 28 max hp) are going to end up healing at a rate of 0. It doesn't make sense for characters to never heal naturally. Solution? Stipulate 1 hit point daily as a minimum for bed rest.

Next, we notice, gee, everyone with max hp between 1 and 55 are healing 1 hit point per day. Sans CON bonus, a fighter with average hit point rolls will have 55.5 hit points at 11th level. That's crazy high. So why not just say healing is 1 hit point per day, period. And if you do happen to be in crazy high hit point range, we'll just say you're at 100% in 28 days, per our initial and really only premise here.


Now I'm not saying that's how the rule came about. Just pointing out that if that were the thought process behind the rule, it could alter the perceptions. That the flaw you cite would not be attributable to the hit point system but rather the graininess of using such small, convenient, whole numbers. Which we do all the time in TTRPGs to keep the math simpler. In just about any other mechanic, criticizing anomalies emergent from graininess would likely be considered more pedantic rather than constructive.

I mean, what would the alternative look like?

If you allow captain 5th level with his curly locks and his 35 hit points to so much as heal 2 hit points per day to differentiate him from sergeant 1st level's 1 hit point per day, you're allowing him to restore 6.67% of his max hp daily without even the excuse of just rounding off to the nearest whole number. And sergeant 1st level will still go from 1 hit point to max faster than captain 5th level.

This sure feels like a graininess problem to me.


Another thing.

If all I knew about two different prize fighters is one's had 10 fights and the other had 50 fights, I'm guessing the guy who's had 50 fights can probably take a punch better than the guy with 10 fights, and the guy with 10 fights is probably going to recover from a fight quicker than a guy with 50.

So I'm not even sure if I'm convinced the flaw is actually a flaw.


Although I'm not entirely sold on my own counter-argument here because I don't necessarily want to bake age and potential old injuries into this cake.

I usually look at it more from a more neutral perspective. Let's say each guy gets dealt 5 damage from going 2 rounds with Mike Tyson before he bites their ears in the third round, ending the match. Why shouldn't each fighter need the same recovery time for going the same two rounds with the same fighter?

And if the less experienced fighter with his fewer hit points went 2 rounds with Tyson before getting KO'd, and the more experienced fighter, with his more hit points, managed to go 10 rounds before the KO, why shouldn't it take the second fighter longer to recover from taking 5 times as many rounds' worth of punches?


I don't know that recovery rates are exactly linear to trauma, either. Just wondering why we assume recovery rate should be proportional to a character's full health rather than proportional to the trauma suffered. It's almost fortunate that the graininess of hit points negates the difference between the views. That way we don't have to figure it out and don't have to choose.

Quote from: Chris24601 on March 22, 2022, 12:36:13 PM
Conversely, surviving a game with just a few scraps of hit points remaining because of lucky dice (or skill when its in a video game) because you haven't been reduced to the effectiveness of a potato is something everyone remembers and talks about fondly.

Those times are memorable because they had the highest element of risk. Victory or defeat was one move or roll away. Something that cannot happen while there is enough HP to provide a safety net. Moreover, skill and lucky RNG provide different sensations. In the former, I feel that I did that, while in the latter I feel I screwed up and got away with it.

Quote from: VisionStorm on March 22, 2022, 01:16:44 PM
I would much rather have 0 HP be that "Oh shit!" break away point, where you're too grievously injured to keep fighting (along with steep penalties for everything) and better try to run away.

In my experience, players double down on winning the combat when a PC goes down instead of opting to retreat, so nerfing combat potential is much better at encouraging a tactical withdrawal.

Quote from: VisionStorm on March 22, 2022, 01:16:44 PM
And the shortcomings of HP can be sidestepped by introducing trigger events (such as Critical Hits, as Pundit suggests in the video, or taking Massive Damage from a single hit) that require you to make a Death Save, even if you have enough HP to soak it up. That way you can add the lethality element without having to track shifting Wound Status (that don't even account for small cumulative injuries very well) with cumulative penalties and stuff, or "X Hits" mechanics that are really just watered down HP masquerading as something else.

Classically, massive damage and critical hits are both RNG events so neither is initiated by player choice. Gameplay consists of spamming attack that chip way at HP in the hopes of rolling a lucky knockout blow. Arguably, this is much more interesting when there is a limited resource that can boost critical hit probably or allow a keep better result reroll. Now there are decisions to be made, instead of favoring the statistically optimal coarse of action. This gets even better when the moral blows, whether criticals or massive damage, are a function of opposed combat skill rolls that can be augmented form a luck or skill pool, such as Mekton or Gumshoe. How much do I want to buff a roll with a limited resource to encourage or practically guarantee the desired outcome is a compelling decision, while what will give me the best chances of a critical is not. HP could even become the combat roll enhancing currency if combat is changed to opposed rolls with the discrepancy having additional effects like, bypassing DR, adding to damage, multiplying damage, rolling on special damage tables, or direct temporary ability score damage. How much risk are you willing to take, HP sacrificed, to put your opponent at risk of a KO? This HP sacrifice feature could also be effected by class feature or character levels to make some builds more or less threatening as desired.

Quote from: Chris24601 on March 22, 2022, 11:14:45 AM
Likewise, if they were just meat, why does it take longer for the 5th level fighter with 1hp remaining to recover to full than a 1st level fighter to do the same?

Good point, "healing magic" and natural healing should be a level-based calculation, not a flat figure.

Quote from: Kiero on March 23, 2022, 07:57:24 AM

Quote from: Chris24601 on March 22, 2022, 11:14:45 AM
Likewise, if they were just meat, why does it take longer for the 5th level fighter with 1hp remaining to recover to full than a 1st level fighter to do the same?

Good point, "healing magic" and natural healing should be a level-based calculation, not a flat figure.

   This is one of the things 4th Edition tried to do and got lambasted for. Adventurer Conqueror King has a version of it in the Heroic Fantasy Handbook, and I imagine there are other variations out there in the wilds of the OSR and d20 spinoffs.

Quote from: Chris24601 on March 22, 2022, 11:14:45 AM
Likewise, if they were just meat, why does it take longer for the 5th level fighter with 1hp remaining to recover to full than a 1st level fighter to do the same?

Being "meat points" only doesn't mean they're necessarily representative of absolute amounts of meat. Each HP could be a percentage of total available meat. The more HP you have, the smaller the percentage increments of meat you lose per HP.

Looked at so, the 5th level fighter and the 1st Level fighter take the same time to heal, because they have same total meat.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer on March 23, 2022, 08:00:59 AM

Quote from: Kiero on March 23, 2022, 07:57:24 AM

Quote from: Chris24601 on March 22, 2022, 11:14:45 AM
Likewise, if they were just meat, why does it take longer for the 5th level fighter with 1hp remaining to recover to full than a 1st level fighter to do the same?

Good point, "healing magic" and natural healing should be a level-based calculation, not a flat figure.

   This is one of the things 4th Edition tried to do and got lambasted for. Adventurer Conqueror King has a version of it in the Heroic Fantasy Handbook, and I imagine there are other variations out there in the wilds of the OSR and d20 spinoffs.

Agree here with Kiero, regarding natural healing. Magic healing is already scaled ... by cleric level.

What criticism was leveled at ACKS and 4e over this? I never heard it.

I only mean to say the "Devil in the Details" has arisen as mechanics have emerged to describe things that players seem to want.

How you want to define that, runs from Damage Tracks, Death Spiral mechanics, smaller-numbers to crunch, task-resolution streamlining, etc.

HP is where everything started. It's a relic in the sense that the purpose of them has shifted as our sensibilities have shifted. This is obscure to newer gamers that have come into the hobby even is later editions of D&D - when in the old school zero-HP means you're dead.

But there is exposure to other systems that handle the same things as HP/Armor/Damage differently but ultimately might scratch your personal itch better.

I don't think Savage Worlds is necessarily the *best* way to do it. Personally I like things a little grittier, but rarely run my games like this - I like CP2020's Damage track, heh. It's a short trip, boys. Don't knick yourself shaving, you're gonna need that box.

Quote from: Wisithir on March 22, 2022, 10:31:37 PM
In my experience, players double down on winning the combat when a PC goes down instead of opting to retreat, so nerfing combat potential is much better at encouraging a tactical withdrawal.

While I"m wary of death spiral mechanics, I'm tempted to use a house rule that PCs at 50% or less hit point become "Bloodied", and suffer a -1 to die rolls and AC. As a subtle reminder that hey, maybe consider retreat now instead of stubbornly plowing through a combat to the bitter end.

Quote from: tenbones on March 23, 2022, 11:02:46 AM
I only mean to say the "Devil in the Details" has arisen as mechanics have emerged to describe things that players seem to want.

How you want to define that, runs from Damage Tracks, Death Spiral mechanics, smaller-numbers to crunch, task-resolution streamlining, etc.

HP is where everything started. It's a relic in the sense that the purpose of them has shifted as our sensibilities have shifted. This is obscure to newer gamers that have come into the hobby even is later editions of D&D - when in the old school zero-HP means you're dead.

But there is exposure to other systems that handle the same things as HP/Armor/Damage differently but ultimately might scratch your personal itch better.

I don't think Savage Worlds is necessarily the *best* way to do it. Personally I like things a little grittier, but rarely run my games like this - I like CP2020's Damage track, heh. It's a short trip, boys. Don't knick yourself shaving, you're gonna need that box.

  I find using gritty damage rules and lowering the bennies to one per player makes SW a whole lot grittier.  It starts to depart from pulpy and enter more the Aliens level of grit.

Quote from: tenbones on March 23, 2022, 11:02:46 AM
I only mean to say the "Devil in the Details" has arisen as mechanics have emerged to describe things that players seem to want.

How you want to define that, runs from Damage Tracks, Death Spiral mechanics, smaller-numbers to crunch, task-resolution streamlining, etc.

HP is where everything started. It's a relic in the sense that the purpose of them has shifted as our sensibilities have shifted. This is obscure to newer gamers that have come into the hobby even is later editions of D&D - when in the old school zero-HP means you're dead.

But there is exposure to other systems that handle the same things as HP/Armor/Damage differently but ultimately might scratch your personal itch better.

I don't think Savage Worlds is necessarily the *best* way to do it. Personally I like things a little grittier, but rarely run my games like this - I like CP2020's Damage track, heh. It's a short trip, boys. Don't knick yourself shaving, you're gonna need that box.

There's also tension within the group, on the question of just how afraid the players should be of combat.  I generally want the characters to be in more danger than the players do.  Moreover, most of my players are the types to imagine more danger than is really there.  So our compromises in various systems tend to involve a lot of perception-altering tricks by me that work for us.  Hit points are a lot more acceptable to a player that is not the type to dig too much into the underlying math.  (Extreme case, run a hit point based game where the GM tracks all the hit point, automatically ratchets up the tension even for the mechanic savvy, at least until they've got enough experience with their characters to reverse-engineer the numbers they know are there.)

In my own system, I've got two hit point tracks, of Life and Grit, with "grit" taking the usual role of hit points.  Life is a low number, such that even a very tough, experienced character would have less than 20, and most starting characters are sitting around 5.   A stat's person will calculate the odds and see that until you run out of Grit, the threat to Life is relatively mild.  My players see that a critical hit is damaging "life" and they start to worry about it--and then have their characters act appropriately--which is the end goal.   

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on March 23, 2022, 01:10:50 PM(Extreme case, run a hit point based game where the GM tracks all the hit point, automatically ratchets up the tension even for the mechanic savvy, at least until they've got enough experience with their characters to reverse-engineer the numbers they know are there.)

Have you ever actually tried this?  If so, how well did it work?  I've always wanted to give this a shot but never found the right opportunity.

Quote from: Mishihari on March 23, 2022, 01:36:12 PM

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on March 23, 2022, 01:10:50 PM(Extreme case, run a hit point based game where the GM tracks all the hit point, automatically ratchets up the tension even for the mechanic savvy, at least until they've got enough experience with their characters to reverse-engineer the numbers they know are there.)

Have you ever actually tried this?  If so, how well did it work?  I've always wanted to give this a shot but never found the right opportunity.

Yes.  Did it a few times using AD&D 1E, at lower levels of play.  Players built the characters and knew their characteristics, but I rolled and tracked their hit points.  We did it explicitly to see how it would play.  What really made it scary for them was that I didn't announce damage in numbers, only in general terms. 

It works well in some way, not in others.  It turns the volume up to 11 on a dungeon crawl game, even for a group that had already learned the hard way to avoid unnecessary fights.  However, it's also kind of a diminishing returns kind of deal.  Players that like and understand that style will already seek to avoid fights or at least arrange the situation to help them whenever they can.  Not knowing their exact hit points doesn't change that.  I think the best aspect was actually in the descriptions, since I didn't need to tell them a number on how much damage they took.  Since I cared more for the results than the feel, it wasn't buying us much.

Then I started running games for 7+ players (sometimes up around 15) and that part went out the window fast.  4 or 5 players is about the limit for me in that style.    Sometimes I run for 4 to 5 players now, but it's a very different group.  I think running that style with them, when the hook for the adventure presented itself, they'd decide to stay home.

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

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.
...

The big disconnect lots of people get from D&D is due to the fact that almost every other game has limited/Fixed HP and explicitly treats them as meat points.

They then have a 'Hero Point' mechanic of some kind to emulate the stamina/morale/luck side of the character. With attack/defense going up in a much shallower skill curve than 3-4e WotC D&D 1-20 level progression.

D&D has generally always treated its HP progression as Meat+Hero points all rolled into one. Which some people have always had issues wrapping their head around.

IMHO this has gotten rather incongruous and muddled with 5e.

They now have 'bounded accuracy'  which limits AC and attack bonuses. And they have inspiration and HD expenditure taking on the role of 'hero points'...

But they still have the 1-20 HP bloat on top of it all!

WTF - make up your minds bros for what mechanic does what.

While I see some good ideas in the 5e rules, reading them has convinced me that the 'professional' game designers at WotC possess no special skill...

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

Yes. It is clear from things that they have written and said since that Tweet et al. made 3e into the type of D&D that they liked to run.

It wasn't streamlined from a top down attempt at understanding how the rules interacted with each other.

Quote from: VisionStorm on March 19, 2022, 09:39:35 AM
What's broken about HP isn't how people conceptualize them (Meat Points vs Luck/Stamina, etc.) but the fact that regardless how you choose to explain what they are they don't properly illustrate lethality or the threat level of getting stabbed with a knife and other low damage attacks ...

I would say that most people don't want a 'real life' emulation of lethality in their RPG's.

They want an 'Action Movie' emulation of lethality.

For which hit points work reasonably well. Especially if your game does not have HP bloat.