HP-less RPG combat

[Human Shield]

You know you could always separate a hero surviving due to physical strength from surviving due to drama...

 

[RK47]

Those guys want a realistic chance of limb loss etc even in trivial encounters versus level 3 orcs, so every combat matters. Nobody will want to play this game though, apart from the four, five posters here who like that idea, of course.

I disagree, it's not always about challenge, I'd like an encounter that does not always reward kills for XP. Like so many RPGs insist I kill these generic fozzles for XP. Why are these guys risking their lives despite knowing they WILL be beat? What's their motivation? how can they still stand and charge at their LAST HP? Why is that mage still casting flawlessly despite the mauling the barbarian gave with his 2 handed ax? Oh, because has 2 HP instead of 0.

Look, I'd like this idea expanded from a 1 v 1 encounter where one combatant has to DIE to one combatant has to RETREAT or DISABLED. Think of the possibilities:
You can slice off the soldier's arm, forcing him to surrender and ask him for information.
Or you can knock him unconscious and interrogate him when he wakes up.
Even after that you CAN still behead him or opt to RP more evil shit on him such as cutting his tongue and arms off and send him back to the enemy camp as a warning. You can still free him as well.

Isn't it better than Baldur's Gate 1, fight fozzle, dig his stuffs and suddenly Narrator tells you: OH MAN YOU JUST BEAT THIS CHAPTER GOOD JOB SHAGGY! NOW TAKE THE HIPPIE VAN AND GANG TO CLOAKWOOD WHERE THE IRON THRONE PPL R BANDITING before you even opened the letters?

 

[Lord Rocket]

Those guys want a realistic chance of limb loss etc even in trivial encounters versus level 3 orcs, so every combat matters.

Why do you assume that a game like that would have a combat encounter every five minutes or so?

Games where a 'trivial' encounter can kill you generally provide incentives to avoid combat (remaining alive is a good one). Think Thief - which strikes me as pretty well loved, incidentally.

Next, long-winded battles of attrition are even more un-fun than being run over arbitrarily, and I can say thet without hyperbole because I have suffered through both. Getting run over is over and done with pretty fast, after all.

Finally, IVAN is great fun and you can lose your limbs fairly easily. And get arbitrarily exploded by land mines.

 

[Jasede]

I can tell you and I do not enjoy the same times of games. Combat is, for me, one of the most important parts of an RPG, and ought to be plentiful and not always avoidable. What better way to see how much stronger you've become? If combat were really rare I'd feel as if playing an adventure with stats. Kinda like Torment, except that Torment had terrible combat

Well, you go muse; it's just, again, most people won't enjoy this kind of thing; it's masochistic.

And Thief really shouldn't be mentioned here since you can rather easily kill everything in it, if you wanted to; it's not an RPG and shouldn't be brought up in this discussion. Permanent limb loss? No thanks, unless I really had it coming. And rolling a 1 while fighting a bunch of orcs isn't "having it coming", not with the RPGs I grew up with.

RK47, all you describe, you can already all do with a good DM in an NWN PW, or to a greater extent, on a MUCK/MUD. Your perfect roleplaying game? It already exists - they're called MUCKs. Thought the people who play on those hardcore RP MUCK/MUD things are weird, usually 30-40 year old elitists that aren't nice at all. There's no OOC on those, unless your mother has a stroke or something; but they tend to have everything you want: limb loss (some), dynamic, changing world (from your actions), realistic characters (other players), etc.

 

[SkeleTony]

You're against Bethesda removing role-playing stats from Fallout 3, yet you are for eliminating the HP system?

I seriously don't understand you, folks.

Don't lose your cape man. 'Hit points' CAN be suitable when done right but D&D just does not do them right(that was my point from the other thread). The rationalization that "Hit points represent more than just ability to take damage..."(i.e. "they represent some crazy combination of luck + rolling with punches + physique + veteran wile") just does not work. If this rationalization DID work then we should expect a "cure wounds" spell to improve your odds at the gambling table or aid you in a feat of tightrope walking or some other acrobatic maneuver. A PC wearing a cursed ring of bad luck should have his hit points reduced in addition to whatever 'save throw' penalties he incurs.

I understand that a lot of people don't care for such considerations of realism/logical consistency in their abstract games but I think even these D&D fans would be upset over that same lazy game design being carried over to other parts of the system. If the designers of D&D had just lumped 'Dexterity', 'Strength' and 'Charisma' under one attribute called "Physicality" or some such nonsense then you guys would not be defending that.

Runequest did hit points a LOT better. Core HP were determined by adding SIZE and Constitution together and the only way these ever got raised were to raise one of those attributes. Different body parts had different amounts of HP as a percentage of the core HP Arms had less HP than legs and both of those had less than the torso(for humanoids) and when a single location lost all of it's HP it was mangled/severed/disemboweled/etc. or otherwise destroyed.
RQ characters improved their skills themselves by using them(there were no 'levels') and was the first system to use such a mechanic. A character like Conan could be translated accurately to RQ whereas he could not be translated to D&D. IN RQ Conan did not need 1,000 HP because his dodge, parry and weapon skills in general were so high. In AD&D Conan had to be written up as wearing all manner of magic rings of protection and such and given absurd hit point totals to keep him from being wormfood.

 

[SkeleTony]

I can tell you and I do not enjoy the same times of games. Combat is, for me, one of the most important parts of an RPG, and ought to be plentiful and not always avoidable. What better way to see how much stronger you've become? If combat were really rare I'd feel as if playing an adventure with stats. Kinda like Torment, except that Torment had terrible combat

Well, you go muse; it's just, again, most people won't enjoy this kind of thing; it's masochistic.

And Thief really shouldn't be mentioned here since you can rather easily kill everything in it, if you wanted to; it's not an RPG and shouldn't be brought up in this discussion. Permanent limb loss? No thanks, unless I really had it coming. And rolling a 1 while fighting a bunch of orcs isn't "having it coming", not with the RPGs I grew up with.

RK47, all you describe, you can already all do with a good DM in an NWN PW, or to a greater extent, on a MUCK/MUD. Your perfect roleplaying game? It already exists - they're called MUCKs. Thought the people who play on those hardcore RP MUCK/MUD things are weird, usually 30-40 year old elitists that aren't nice at all. There's no OOC on those, unless your mother has a stroke or something; but they tend to have everything you want: limb loss (some), dynamic, changing world (from your actions), realistic characters (other players), etc.

In other words you do not want to be penalized for playing stupidly/carelessly.Even in heroic fiction the most popular heroes run away...a LOT. Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser seemed to have spent more time trying to run away or avoid a fight than they ever spent fighting IIRC. Elric seldom ran away or bothered to avoid combat because he was armed with the best sword ever created in fantasy fiction(and that sword would not allow him to let people live...friend or not). Conan did his fair share of running and avoiding direct confrontation.

There is PLENTY of tension & excitement even in Computer RPGs without or in lieu of combat. I get downright giddy when I manage to find some clever way of avoiding a fight I did not stand excellent odds of winning. Even loot seems better when I am able to figure out a way to get it without charging into battle with the 'beast whose gaze turns men into naked hamsters'.

 

[Jasede]

I already said stupid decisions should be punished. However, your level 99 barbarian should not run into a risk of being beheaded by 10 level 1 kobolds. Remember that this is a game, not a reality simulator. Fun should be more important than dying.

Besides, the misunderstand is the following: for me, combat is an intergral part of every RPG. Avoiding combat is a nice alternative if the game offers it, but I would rather not run into the risk of permanent losses at every single encounter. No thanks. That wouldn't be a game anymore. Or it would be one, just not one that is fun for me.

 

[Zomg]

I dunno where you're getting the idea that the concept of HP is inextricably linked to very low and zero risk combats.

 

[SkeleTony]

I already said stupid decisions should be punished. However, your level 99 barbarian should not run into a risk of being beheaded by 10 level 1 kobolds.

Why would he? You seem to be under this bizarre impression that having a different HP system or even using an non-HP alternative system = "Kobolds can kill King Arthur!". I already addressed this in my previous replies and explained how getting better at combat skills does not necessitate getting more hit points. The gaining of HP with 'levels' is just a lazy, and stupid cop out on the design.

Remember that this is a game, not a reality simulator. Fun should be more important than dying.

Holy FUCK kiddo...listen up(for once): NO ONE HERE is advocating some system where everybody dies from any combat via wound infections We are just saying that there are ways to represent/simulate combat in GAME TERMS that do4es NOT lead to Conan being mugged by a goblin and without the absurd 'I have 1,000 HP' nonsense.

Besides, the misunderstand is the following: for me, combat is an intergral part of every RPG.

It can be but more often than not it is something that a poor GM relies on for lack of any novel ideas. I LOVE combat in RPGs. I am NOT one of these "choices & consequences" elitist blowhards that say Jagged Alliance 2 is not a RPG. JA2 is one of the best RPGs ever released on the PC. I play roguelikes as well and those are great RPGs(even the ones that use crappy AD&D mechanics). There are BETTER systems is what I am telling you for handling combat in RPGs than the D&D hit point system.

Avoiding combat is a nice alternative if the game offers it, but I would rather not run into the risk of permanent losses at every single encounter. No thanks. That wouldn't be a game anymore. Or it would be one, just not one that is fun for me.

Holy fuck but I thought the point I was making was too obvious...*sigh*. Holy false dichotomies Batman!

 

[Hory]

I already said stupid decisions should be punished. However, your level 99 barbarian should not run into a risk of being beheaded by 10 level 1 kobolds.

Well, the whole concept of levels is unrealistic and if you judge things based only on the numerical level, you'll reach flawed conclusions. A level 99 barbarian is supposed to be 10 times as powerful as a Kobold, or what? Does this also mean that his skin has 10 times the thickness and is hard enough to prevent slashing from metal weapons, or that he can keep his eyes on ten enemies at once? Realistically, an experienced fighter would still be at risk against 10 armed opponents.

Rather than the two extremes: (virtual invulnerability to weaker opponents or chance of immediate death from critical strike), there are much more interesting ways to solve fights like this: kobolds becoming afraid after one or two are brutally murdered, the barbarian doing whirlwind attacks with a great axe in order to keep the enemies away, the barbarian using a mount for staying safe or even trampling the bunch (do barbarians ride?) and so on.

But no, Jasede want his classical:
Attack Kobold 1: dead. All kobolds attack: damage irrelevant.
Attack Kobold 2: dead. All kobolds attack: damage irrelevant.
Etc.

Where's the "fun" you praise so much?

 

[DraQ]

There shouldn't be something like "trivial" encounters.

Also, highly skilled character should be difficult to hit in combat and profficient at hitting others.
Add to this that character wearing armour would be additionally protected.

The concept of highly skilled character parrying and attacking is much more attractive than the concept of guy who just stands there and absorbs enemy blows with his unnaturaly thick meat (adorned with criss-cross pattern of scars).

 

[Jasede]

Hory, in AD&D, kobolds make morale checks and start to flee when even just two, three of their friends die. This applies to most sentient monsters. And non-sentient monsters? I can't imagine a fiendsish demon of hell without a brain, who exists solely to destroy, has a mind to flee.

Also, you're already attacking my beloved HP. Now Levels too? What will come next? An RPG without combat? This is not what Dungeon Master and Wizardry were about. You're forgetting your CRPG roots.

That said, I am sure some of those "innovations" might be interesting, but I wouldn't call the new game an RPG anymore. More like... hmm. LARP simulator or something, or newschool RPG, like Fallout, just a lot more... eugh... new.

 

[DraQ]

Also, you're already attacking my beloved HP. Now Levels too?

Yessss. :twisted:

LARP simulator or something

Strawman! Strawman!

It'd still have mechanics with all bloody important stats.

 

[Hory]

Hory, in AD&D, kobolds make morale checks and start to flee when even just two, three of their friends die. This applies to most sentient monsters.

You're right, but the point is that while weak creatures could be dangerous, there would also be other, more interesting mechanisms to prevent the deaths of strong characters.

Also, you're already attacking my beloved HP. Now Levels too? What will come next? An RPG without combat?

Combat is a conflicting task that needs resolution. There are systems for determining this, as there are systems for determining many other activities. Yes, combat isn't required for a role-playing game, maybe it's required for a combat-playing game.

This is not what Dungeon Master and Wizardry were about.

Yeah, and The Great Train Robbery wasn't about hour-long, full colour, voice acting, sophisticated plotline (eg psychological horror) either, but the movies which have these are still movies (and usually better ones). Yes, maybe all the first RPGs were combat-focused, but more sophisticated modules exist.

You're forgetting your CRPG roots.

I guess you're just not the kind of guy that appreciates anything innovative in an existing field, but I assure you that RPGs will evolve just like any art form does, and they'll still be RPGs.

That said, I am sure some of those "innovations" might be interesting, but I wouldn't call the new game an RPG anymore. More like... hmm. LARP simulator or something, or newschool RPG, like Fallout, just a lot more... eugh... new.

And LARP simulator is more accurate than "RPG"? Yeah, right. They do have combat in LARPs, you know? "Newschool RPG"? So it is a RPG, after all? Jesus, I must be a masochist to argue with you. Drunk men are more open-minded and coherent.

I'll just leave you with an official definition of role-playing games so that you may forever hold your peace:

role-play - To assume or act out a particular role.
game - a competitive activity involving skill, chance, or endurance on the part of two or more persons who play according to a set of rules, usually for their own amusement or for that of spectators.

Now stop whining in every thread about what a RPG is or isn't.

 

[Balor]

Jasede, don't ruin reputation of furries even MORE, if it's physically possible.
Half of your replies consist of 'Waaah! I want my HPs and combat without a challenge!".
You want it? Fine, you have it (in 90% of all games), now get the fuck out of this thread - it's not for you. When you are talking about 'reastic combat is not fun' - you are forgetting that fun is VERY subjective.
For instance, I would not participate in a thread where you would discuss finer details of yiffing, thank you very much.

 

[DraQ]

Jasede, don't ruin reputation of furries even MORE, if it's physically possible.
Half of your replies consist of 'Waaah! I want my HPs and combat without a challenge!".

Seconded. We're perfectly capable of ruining our reputation without resorting to non-fandom-related stuff.

 

[Jasede]

Shut up, DraQ.

 

[avatar_58]

Also, you're already attacking my beloved HP. Now Levels too? What will come next? An RPG without combat? This is not what Dungeon Master and Wizardry were about. You're forgetting your CRPG roots.

That said, I am sure some of those "innovations" might be interesting, but I wouldn't call the new game an RPG anymore. More like... hmm. LARP simulator or something, or newschool RPG, like Fallout, just a lot more... eugh... new.

Why is it whenever a new style or feature is suggested suddenly the game isn't an RPG anymore? You don't honestly expect the genre to stagnate and remain word-for-word a classic RPG? You remind me of the folks who adamantly ignore games like System Shock or Deus Ex because they are hybrid shooters. Git that thar story and statistics outta ma shooter ya hear?

You are just doing the same, only for rpgs. Don't mess with the classic forumula? I say rape it as far as you can. Why not? Variety is what makes games worth playing, if every single game in a genre was the same it would be boring.

 

[DraQ]

Remember kids, it isn't a film if it isn't short, silent and black&white.

 

[JarlFrank]

I already said stupid decisions should be punished. However, your level 99 barbarian should not run into a risk of being beheaded by 10 level 1 kobolds. Remember that this is a game, not a reality simulator. Fun should be more important than dying.

Besides, the misunderstand is the following: for me, combat is an intergral part of every RPG. Avoiding combat is a nice alternative if the game offers it, but I would rather not run into the risk of permanent losses at every single encounter. No thanks. That wouldn't be a game anymore. Or it would be one, just not one that is fun for me.

Hmm. You got a point here, Jas, but you wouldn't need hitpoints for keeping a game fair. Just add something like wound resistance, or disable insta-kills, much rather make a critical hit get the character into a critical health status or something. I have often thought about such problems, too, and they're pretty easy to eliminate, especially if you take armor into consideration, which can help a lot against insta-kills.

 

[AlanC9]

OK, I'm lost. Is the thread about HP, or about HP increasing as the character gains levels? Two completely different concepts

 

[DraQ]

OK, I'm lost. Is the thread about HP, or about HP increasing as the character gains levels? Two completely different concepts

About HP. At least I intended it to be that way.

I don't mind slight offtops about general suckage of ever increasing HPs, though.

 

[mjorkerina]

The problem with D&D way of doing HPs is that they only work perfectly in pen and paper, where HP can mean a combination of luck and all the shit you can come up because you don't visually see anything "hit" the character and the Dungeon Master is controlling all the major happenings. Everything is in the way the Dungeon Master describes the fight and the player doesn't have to care for the mechanics.

Hitpoints make for retarded combat in cRPG because obviously when the sword cuts through your body without painting all the walls with blood there's a problem here. High level characters gets hit a fucking lot through all the parts of their body and we get to *see* it. No, there is no fucking reason that can explain why a high level character shouldn't be dead if I cut his throat with a blade while he's sleeping or in a backstab.

Not to mention, that is pretty rare to play high level characters in pen&paper. If you are sane enough, you don't play beyond levels 10 and more in d&d and if you are careless, HP or not you'll die fast. Low level d&d is no laughing matter.

 

[Spec]

I don't want total realism in a game. I want a fantasy. I play games to escape the real world, so the more a game is like reality the less I like it in a manner of speaking.

Strange, I want exactly the opposite. In fact, my dream RPG is a game which is 100% realistic, where the NPCs think for themselves, the world responds realistically to the player's actions, etc.

Okay. Now please answer my question honestly - and make it a good answer, because I often wanted to ask it on the Codex. Last time I asked it people simply ignored it, either because they knew no answer or didn't want to give one. Here it goes:

If you really want a game like this, with the world responding, etc...

Why do you not play on a hardcore RP MUD/MUCK or NWN PW? With DMs and talented writers as players? You can do everything you want there: the NPCs - which are PCs played by different humans - react 100% realistically to your actions, you can shape and change the server with your actions, you have all the roleplaying you want there.

Because it's "LARP"ing? Hardly! Everyone plays their character according to their stats and if they don't they will quickly get banned, depending on how hardcore the game is. On Armageddon you get banned for even thinking about using the OOC command unless, say, your arm just got shot off offline and you need to quit during something very important.

So, why are you not playing those? They have everything you like. You could have your perfect roleplaying experience right now.

Actually, I do. As a resource for the discussion of such things, however, The Codex is a wagon full of fail. Now when I want to discuss/read about the SP RPG experience, that's where this merry band of trolls is invaluable.

 

[DraQ]

No, there is no fucking reason that can explain why a high level character shouldn't be dead if I cut his throat with a blade while he's sleeping or in a backstab.

Oh, come on.

Warriors develop growing layer of muscles shielding important vessels and organs as they level up. Similarily, mages, as often mentioned by Terry Pratchett in Discworld novels, grow a prtoetctive layer of lard. Of course, lard, being less dense than muscles, offers worse protection, thus mages don't get as much HPs as they level up, as warriors do.