The Campaign Builder's Guild

Quote from: snakefingWell, I'd apply a somewhat different definition of "realistic" in these cases:

1) It should be consistent with the conventions of the genre, setting, and campaign. This is different from being consistent with our real-world expectations.

2) It should be possible to make sense of the outcomes in game-world terms, without making reference to mechanical constructs.

Which is both equally difficult if you use some sort of "measuring" system for injuries. HP, wound levels, etc all try to "measure" the amount of punishment a character can take. When was the last time you heard a real life doctor say "meh, he could have taken 3 more gun shots like that before really being in danger"? The moment you have something to measure or count the amount of damage, both your points break down.

Quote from: snakefingRa-Tiel points out one of the many areas in which D&D falls short on the second point. Going to a WP/VP system helps a little, but there are still some problems making sense of healing, rest, etc.

Using VP/WP only delays the problem to a different point. Even with VP/WP characters still can take a hard, defined, absolute amount of damage before going down, but now there is the chance of a "lucky strike" to bring down a character instantly. And as you already mentioned, healing is also messed up with VP/WP.

Quote from: snakefing(Actually, if you use a system like that, I'd modify the healing spells. Cure Light Wounds should either heal the normal amount of VP, or just 1d2 WP.)

The most reasonable approach to healing would be using percentile healing spells. Something like "cure light wounds heals 10% of your HP total" or something. However, this is a serious pain in the ass to work out at the gaming table, especially when there's no calculator at the table. With such a system, a spell of a given level would be equally powerful for all characters, and not heal one character instantly to full, while barely stabilizing the other one.

Quote from: snakefingSo I think you can use abstractions like WP/VP to create something that is realistic in the genre sense, provided you actually make the effort to match the mechanics up with some reasonably concrete game-world concepts, in a fully consistent way.

I would change some things around. First of all, I would make damage static. A longsword deals 8 points of damage, a greatsword 12, a greataxe 10, and so on (plus appropriate bonuses for Str and feats and spells, etc). No more rolling for damage. Then I'd try to figure out a reasonable and workable mechanic for some sort of "resistance check" or something that reduces the damage taken. And I'd implement a penalty system working off the character's Con score, imposing worse penalties with each hit suffered without giving an absolute total as to how many hits the character could take.

Quote from: snakefingA pure HP system like D&D's may be beyond hope though.

That may be very true. However, wound level systems as they are used in the WoD or Ars Magica are similarily messed up. In those systems, punching someone trice in the face (each dealing one "box" of damage) is often equal to stabbing him with a sword or breaking his leg, as in those systems wound levels usually just keep adding up.

The WoD system is what I would call a damage track, not wound level. You have a fixed number of boxes of damage you can take, and the level of the wound really just determines how many are filled with each hit.

Take The Riddle of Steel (or the Burning Wheel iirc), as an example of a true wound level system. It exactly does not say, well you've been shot three times, one more and your dead. It says, well, you've been shot three times, that sucks for you - it'll slow you down until a single shot actually hits something vital, or else you bleed to death from all your wounds (but there's no fixed number when this happens).

Quote from: Phoenix KnightThe WoD system is what I would call a damage track, not wound level. You have a fixed number of boxes of damage you can take, and the level of the wound really just determines how many are filled with each hit.

Take The Riddle of Steel (or the Burning Wheel iirc), as an example of a true wound level system. It exactly does not say, well you've been shot three times, one more and your dead. It says, well, you've been shot three times, that sucks for you - it'll slow you down until a single shot actually hits something vital, or else you bleed to death from all your wounds (but there's no fixed number when this happens).

Well, wound level was perhaps the wrong word. Damage track fits that much better, thanks for that. ;) Anyways, it still has the same problem as HP do. Some guy punches you twice in the face, breaking your nose and chin, inflicting 2 "boxes" of damage. Then later you get shot with a .50 sniper rifle in the chest. You are dead why? Because you ran out of "health boxes" because someone broke your nose earlier. Yep, indeed very realistic. :-/

While I'm ranting, let me add that I utterly despise the attack resolution mechanic in the new WoD system. In previous versions of the system you rolled attack and damage seperately. Which was imho a good idea. In the new version, however, the result of your attack roll automatically determines how much damage you deal. You now roll (eg for a rifle) Dex + Firearms + Weapon damage, and the number of successes is equal to the amount of damage inflicted. This leads to the very logical conclusion that using an unguided anti-tank missile against a person is a WAY BETTER option than actually using your handgun, just because the rocketlauncher's huge damage grants so many bonus dice on your attack roll. :-|

Quote from: Ra-TielWhich is both equally difficult if you use some sort of "measuring" system for injuries. HP, wound levels, etc all try to "measure" the amount of punishment a character can take. When was the last time you heard a real life doctor say "meh, he could have taken 3 more gun shots like that before really being in danger"? The moment you have something to measure or count the amount of damage, both your points break down.

I think it depends on what kind of genre/setting conventions you are trying to work with.

For example, in many heroic action movies or books, there is a common convention that minions and bystanders can be dropped with a single blow, but the heroes and main villains can pound on each other for a long time with little noticeable effect, until one of them gets worn down and disabled (or flees, or surrenders, as the case may be). Do HP do a good job of simulating this? Not perfect, perhaps, but not too bad really. Of course, that's not "realistic" in the sense of corresponding to reality.

D&D's problem is that they don't really take this view of hit points seriously enough to apply it sensibly. The examples are well-known: healing, recovery, falling damage, disease, magical attacks, and so on.

Perhaps a hybrid system could be used: Your VP represent a buffer of "heroic" actions that allow you to avoid physical damage for a period of time. Once you exceed that, you have to make some kind of health save each time you are damaged to avoid various wound conditions: Wounded, Unconscious/Disabled, Dying, Dead. Existing wound conditions might provide a modifier on your health saves, but they aren't cumulative - if you suffer two Wounded conditions, you are still Wounded, not Unconscious. (Although, you might need two healing spells to recover both wounds.)

That would be more physically realistic while still retaining some of the "heroic" conventions of the action genre.

Anyway, my main point is that in a fantasy/heroic system, hit points aren't necessarily unrealistic, they may just represent a slightly different reality from ours. But for that to be considered a viable alternative reality, you have to apply your ideas in a sensible and consistent manner. Many systems are "unrealistic" in that they don't even represent a consistent alternative reality.

My feelings on HP were always that no matter what system was in use, it would annoy me somehow.

No, that's not the most useful answer, but perhaps it simply states the principle that no matter what you do, you won't ever please everyone... and sometimes, you won't please anyone. :D

Ok, just a quick idea for an alternative, more "realistic" mechanic.

---------

Weapons deal fixed points of damage now. A crossbow bolt to the torse is a crossbow bolt to the torse, and there just shouldn't be a 1/8 chance of anyone walking away with anything less than at least a deep wound. As a quick and dirty conversion, I'm using just the maxed out normal damage die of a weapon as its "damage rating" (DR). To this damage rating you add all other bonuses like high Strength, magical enhancements, or feats. This gives the "total damage rating" (TDR).

The best way to deal with damage is not getting hit. Using the "combat defense" variant from SSS's "Advanced Player's Guide", creatures have the active options of trying to soak up the attack with their armor, dodge it, block it, or parry it, instead of only hoping the attacker rolls poorly. Not only does this more accurately reflect the real actions in combat, but also places more control in the players' hands, forcing them to pay attention even when it's not their character's turn. Also, it allows for a classical "trading blows back and forth" style of combat, instead of more common "stand and deliver" thing prevalent in v3.5.

So, dodge/block/parry defense all increase as the character's BAB respectively Ref save increase. Armor defense, however, remains mostly static, only increasing a little if the armor gets enhanced or something. This could be seen as the fact that better swordsmen are able to spot and exploit an armor's weakness more easily. However, it puts the classical "tank" fighter archetype at a serious disadvantage compared to eg a parry-specialized two weapon fighter. To compensate for it, armor also provides an amount of "damage reduction" (DRD) equal to its armor bonus.

Ok, but what keeps the frontliners and tank types soaking up more damage than the other characters? The character's "damage treshold" (DT). Martial characters typically have a higher Con score than other characters, primarily because it's more important to them. A character's DT is always equal to (his Con score) - 10 + (any appropriate bonuses). Certain abilities (such as the Toughness feat) provide a bonus to the character's DRS. Additionally, typical melee fighters are going to have talents that will help them survive, talents other characters most likely are unwilling or unable to acquire because of their prerequisities.

Now, if a character gets hit the action would be like this:
#1: Calculate "effective damage rating" (EDR): (attack's TDR) - (target's DRD)
#2: Compare EDR against target's DT:
- EDR < DT: target suffers light wound
- DT <= EDR < 2*DT: target suffers moderate wound
- 2*DT <= EDR < 3*DT: target suffers serious wound
- 3*DT <= EDR: target suffers critical wound
#3: Apply appropriate wound penalties:
- light wound: cumulative -1 penalty per wound to all checks
- moderate wound: cumulative -2 penalty per wound to all checks, Will save against DC = EDR or become sickened for 1 minute
- serious wound: cumulative -4 penalty per wound to all checks, Will save against DC = EDR or become nauseated for 1 minute
- critical wound: cumulative -8 penalty per wound to all checks, Fort save against DC = EDR or become dying, Will save against DC = EDR or fall unconscious for 1 hour

---------

This mechanic would remove rolling for HP and damage, and place more importance in avoiding hits instead of [trying] soaking them up with your body or something. If you are hit, you still have the chance to get away with a scratch if it was a weak attack or if you wore thick armor. However, if the attack punched through your armor, or you couldn't avoid it, then you're in trouble. Also, the system should be quicker to use in combat; just take the attack's total damage rating, substract your character's damage reduction gained from armor, and compare the result against his damage resistance.

As an additional benefit, the GM can easily modify the deadliness of encounters based on their importance. If he just doesn't want the characters to suffer severe injuries from some minor mobs, he simply states that those monsters can only inflict light and moderate wounds on PCs. In normal DnD it always becomes a little suspicious if all ogres only deal 4 points of damage per hit. ;) Actually, in a "Scarred Lands" campaign we once had the following situation. Our party, consisting of one human sorcerers (a noble), a dwarven fighter (the noble's bodyguard), and a human ranger (my character, an independent scout and bounty hunter), were making our way through an ancient ruin after escaping a giant ambush (this was a plot device to get us into the ruins, the noble's entourage was brutally slaughtered as the rest of the character's escaped into the ruin). There we met some sort of "adamantine spider", who had a nasty bite attack and whose web was as strong as that metal. In the middle of combat, our fighter was hit by a critical. What we didn't know, was that the multiplier was x4. Miraculously, however, the spider only inflicted 33 points of damage with its crit of 4d8+28, dropping the fighter "only" to -9.

It would also greatly increase the opportunity to mesh crunch with fluff, as the DM could have a sheet with all characters' DTs behind the screen, and only describes the action ("and with a swift slash the baron thrusts at you with his rapier, but the blow mostly glances harmlessly off your armor only leaving a thin scratch on your hand" or "the ogre brutally swings his tree-sized club at you, hitting you squarely in the chest and sending you flying through the air as your armor deforms under the terrible assault and some ribs break from the huge force") and tells the players the results ("you suffer a light wound" or "your character takes a serious wound, roll a Will save please").

Of course the actual numbers need some tuning (especially DR/TDR, DT, and the wound penalties), but I hope I got the general idea across.

That's an interesting take. The only really obvious problem I can see is that if you are being attacked with a light enough weapon (say, a dagger against a moderately armored character) then you'll probably never be dealt more than a succession of light wounds. That

What would help would be probably be some kind of system where your damage can be increased with degree of success. E.g., hit by 5 or more, 2x damage; hit by 10 or more, 3x damage; etc. Or maybe just if critical hits (confirmed) can bypass the armor damage reduction. Or if your DT can get worn down over time.

Quote from: snakefingThat's an interesting take. The only really obvious problem I can see is that if you are being attacked with a light enough weapon (say, a dagger against a moderately armored character) then you'll probably never be dealt more than a succession of light wounds. That

What would help would be probably be some kind of system where your damage can be increased with degree of success. E.g., hit by 5 or more, 2x damage; hit by 10 or more, 3x damage; etc. Or maybe just if critical hits (confirmed) can bypass the armor damage reduction. Or if your DT can get worn down over time.

I see what you mean. However, I really don't like the idea of many small hits making a character more easy to injure. Easier to hit, definitively. But easier to injure? Hardly. Anyways, with Combat Defense, the character will suffer in combat. Each wound he takes, and even light wounds, make it harder for him to defend himself against further attacks. At some point, his wound penalty will be so big that he cannot possibly succeed at any task requiring a check. This is the time he lies on the ground bleeding and unable to move anymore from pain.

Also, in this system there wouldn't be any critical hits. A farmer with a knife just has no possible chance to defeat a rested knight in full plate. Period. However, I am aware of the problems you point out. But in a lengthy combat, I think, this will rather quickly compensate by the character suffering so many penalties and light wounds. And I haven't thought yet about a mechanic involving "combat maneuvers", which will probably make your problem nonexistent. ;)

Quote from: Ra-TielI see what you mean. However, I really don't like the idea of many small hits making a character more easy to injure. Easier to hit, definitively. But easier to injure? Hardly. Anyways, with Combat Defense, the character will suffer in combat. Each wound he takes, and even light wounds, make it harder for him to defend himself against further attacks. At some point, his wound penalty will be so big that he cannot possibly succeed at any task requiring a check. This is the time he lies on the ground bleeding and unable to move anymore from pain.

Also, in this system there wouldn't be any critical hits. A farmer with a knife just has no possible chance to defeat a rested knight in full plate. Period. However, I am aware of the problems you point out. But in a lengthy combat, I think, this will rather quickly compensate by the character suffering so many penalties and light wounds. And I haven't thought yet about a mechanic involving "combat maneuvers", which will probably make your problem nonexistent. ;)

To some extent I disagree with you. Easier to hit does mean easier to injure, in many cases - if only because it is easier to make your blows land in particularly damaging ways. (E.g., a guy who is barely limping along will be easier to target with your rifle, so you are far more likely to hit in a vital area.)

Of course, this could all be simulated by allowing maneuvers like called shots, vital strikes, or increasing damage, where the cumulative penalties of previous wounds would make these maneuvers easier and/or less risky to the attacker. You can't really separate the hit point/wound system from the rest of the system.

I think that's where success-based systems shine. More successes increases your damage (in most systems, base damage is from weapon + str, then add net successes).

Because, I think what he was saying, is that, all things considered, stabbing someone in a lung has the same effect whether or not they've already been stabbed in the thigh. It's just that the guy with a wound in his thigh would have a harder time evading the second hit, making it more likely to hit something like a lung. A system like D&D, where damage is totally divorced from how well you strike can't account for this, at least not easily.

Quote from: snakefingTo some extent I disagree with you. Easier to hit does mean easier to injure, in many cases - if only because it is easier to make your blows land in particularly damaging ways. (E.g., a guy who is barely limping along will be easier to target with your rifle, so you are far more likely to hit in a vital area.)

Now, if you're unarmored and movement impaired that's correct. But if you move around slower or "more sluggish" because of some heavy suit of armor the situation changes. While making you a bit slower, the armor is likely to simple deflect or absorb weaker blows. In that case, easier to hit != easier to damage. ;)

Quote from: snakefingOf course, this could all be simulated by allowing maneuvers like called shots, vital strikes, or increasing damage, where the cumulative penalties of previous wounds would make these maneuvers easier and/or less risky to the attacker. You can't really separate the hit point/wound system from the rest of the system.

Of course this wouldn't be much like DnD in any sense. But I think that implementing more than a few maneuvers would again overcomplicate the mechanics with too many aspects to consider. Perhaps if you made those special maneuvers feats (like they did with Power Attack) or talents it could work. This way only martial characters (or characters with a martial touch) would be able of performing them, just like in real life. I do know several people who are so "unproficient", they wouldn't be able to stab a tied up person right.

Quote from: Phoenix KnightI think that's where success-based systems shine. More successes increases your damage (in most systems, base damage is from weapon + str, then add net successes).

Depends on how the system is implemented. Generally I agree with you, but for example the new WoD system did that horribly wrong by combining attack and damage roll into one. You roll "ability + skill + weapon damage" and each success is one box of damage. This means that a rocket launcher is a better anti-infantry weapon than a sniper rifle. :-/

Quote from: Phoenix KnightBecause, I think what he was saying, is that, all things considered, stabbing someone in a lung has the same effect whether or not they've already been stabbed in the thigh. It's just that the guy with a wound in his thigh would have a harder time evading the second hit, making it more likely to hit something like a lung. A system like D&D, where damage is totally divorced from how well you strike can't account for this, at least not easily.

Absolutely! Hear, hear! :)

Quote from: Ra-TielOf course this wouldn't be much like DnD in any sense. But I think that implementing more than a few maneuvers would again overcomplicate the mechanics with too many aspects to consider. Perhaps if you made those special maneuvers feats (like they did with Power Attack) or talents it could work. This way only martial characters (or characters with a martial touch) would be able of performing them, just like in real life. I do know several people who are so "unproficient", they wouldn't be able to stab a tied up person right.

Actually, I figure that once you get rid of hit points, you moved right out of DnD territory anyway. But I was thinking of probably one simple mechanic for increasing attack power (say, add +X to your damage at cost of -X on your attacks and defenses for the round), combined with one or two feats or special abilities, like sneak attack, that provide other benefits such as armor bypass. That way, once you've worn your opponent down, you can add power to your attacks.

Of course, anything like this would require some extensive playtesting to get the numbers just right.

Quote from: Phoenix KnightBecause, I think what he was saying, is that, all things considered, stabbing someone in a lung has the same effect whether or not they've already been stabbed in the thigh. It's just that the guy with a wound in his thigh would have a harder time evading the second hit, making it more likely to hit something like a lung. A system like D&D, where damage is totally divorced from how well you strike can't account for this, at least not easily.

Absolutely! Hear, hear! :)
[/quote]
Well, DnD doesn't even try to account for this. That's not the type of world they are aiming for. Which is okay... I guess. My main problem with DnD isn't that they aren't accounting for this, but that they don't make even a rudimentary effort at creating a consistent system. Hit points in DnD are a purely mechanical contrivance - if you try to figure out what they mean, you'll end up spinning your wheels until you realize that you aren't supposed to do that.

I do think that you could make a hit point mechanism "quasi-realistic". If you want me to try, I'll be glad to give it a shot. Of course, in this alternate reality, some of our real-world intuitions would be violated.

Quote from: snakefingActually, I figure that once you get rid of hit points, you moved right out of DnD territory anyway. But I was thinking of probably one simple mechanic for increasing attack power (say, add +X to your damage at cost of -X on your attacks and defenses for the round), combined with one or two feats or special abilities, like sneak attack, that provide other benefits such as armor bypass. That way, once you've worn your opponent down, you can add power to your attacks.

I've thought of something similar. However, my idea was to make that into talents of varying effects and power, as not everybody knows how to bypass armor or how to exploit an enemy's injuries. But the basic idea is the same.

Quote from: snakefingOf course, anything like this would require some extensive playtesting to get the numbers just right.

True, but I think it may be an interesting experiment. :)

Quote from: snakefingWell, DnD doesn't even try to account for this. That's not the type of world they are aiming for. Which is okay... I guess. My main problem with DnD isn't that they aren't accounting for this, but that they don't make even a rudimentary effort at creating a consistent system. Hit points in DnD are a purely mechanical contrivance - if you try to figure out what they mean, you'll end up spinning your wheels until you realize that you aren't supposed to do that.

Well, one must say that HP are relatively easy as a general mechanic. I think the most accurate abstraction of HP is that you only get hit hard once - by the blow that reduces you to 0 or less. Anything else are just bruises and minor scratches.

Quote from: snakefingI do think that you could make a hit point mechanism "quasi-realistic". If you want me to try, I'll be glad to give it a shot. Of course, in this alternate reality, some of our real-world intuitions would be violated.

In my opinion VP/WP are about as "realistic" as any hitpoint mechanic can get. However, the most prominent problem with DnD in general (which is still present with VP/WP) is that the same attack affects characters differently. A level 1 wizard may be close to death after hit by a sword for 9 damage, while a level 12 barbarian is barely scratched. This relativity is what completely breaks hitpoints as a way to "realistically" simulate combat. I think of DnD HP more in terms of Last Action Hero ("You call that an emergency? That's not even a flesh wound!") rather than Babylon 5 (where people hit by a weapon usually just die).

Quote from: Ra-TielWell, one must say that HP are relatively easy as a general mechanic. I think the most accurate abstraction of HP is that you only get hit hard once - by the blow that reduces you to 0 or less. Anything else are just bruises and minor scratches.

See, I think you can get somewhere with a concept like that. Basically, your pool of HP represents some kind of heroic energy that you draw on to make exceptional actions and avoid or shrug off the effects of a blow. But once you've used up your heroic energy (reach 0 hp) you are just as vulnerable to blows as anyone else. (Or maybe HP represents fatigue, or divine favor. D&D is purposely vague, but to make a proper system I think you'd have to commit yourself to some particular concept and stick with it.)

The fighter taking 9 "damage" from a blow actually avoids or deflects the blow, albeit with a heroic effort to do so. The wizard tries to do this, but doesn't have the right stuff - he can partially reduce the effect - once - but he'll be wounded.

To make this "realistic" (even by my own rather generous definition of realism), you'd have to take this concept seriously and extend it to all kinds of damage and harm, healing and recovery, etc. Then you could say, for example, that a 10th level fighter who is reduced to 5 hp is just kind of used up, and now just as vulnerable as a low level wizard.

But D&D doesn't really use this concept. They just want to use HP as a relatively easy scoring mechanism.

WP/VP helps a little, but still has many of the same problems. What are VP? Why do healing spells work partly on WP and partly on VP? (It would be more consistent to have separate spells like Restore Vitality and Heal Wounds, wouldn't it?) How can VP help you against falling damage, poison damage, etc? (Seems like, beyond a certain point, VP wouldn't help you reduce the effect of a long fall, for example.) The distinction between physical damage and non-physical damage needs to be carried through better to make this really consistent - but since WP/VP is designed to fit in with the existing rules for magic, etc. they really have a hard time with this.

So what I'm trying to get at is that these things aren't unrealistic because they don't accurately simulate wounds. They aren't intended to do that. Nor is the problem that high HP are inherently unrealistic - that's part of the genre. Where the problem comes in is that there's no real in-game justification that can be consistently applied and visualized for role-playing purposes.

If I were designing my own system, I'd combine something like Vitality Points with some kind of wounding system. So once you ran out of Vitality Points (or if you suffer damage that VP don't help with), you can accumulate a number of different levels of wounds (say, Minor, Serious, Critical, Fatal). Each blow causes only one wound, and each level has various cumulative effects. So, for example:

Falling damage: short falls (20' or less) do d6 VP damage per 10 ft. After that, you'll suffer d6 damage per additional 10 ft, but by-passing VP - so it would go straight to causing a wounded condition of some kind, depending on your character's resistance and/or saves, and the actual amount of damage.

Spell damage: Each damaging spell would have to be re-designed. If it is damage that a person can realistically dodge/shield/deflect/avoid/shrug off, it can do VP damage. Otherwise, it might bypass VP, or it might simply be written as causing a wound of particular level.

Healing: Restore Vitality spells to add VP, Heal Wound spells to reduce the level of wounds. Herbal remedies and/or potions would be fairly widely available to restore vitality, but not so much to heal wounds.

Recovery: VP recover relatively quickly naturally. Say, after any encounter, 10 min rest will recover half the VP damage from that encounter. After that, your level per hour, or maybe half your level. Wounds less quickly - with a full night's rest, make a DC XX Fort save per each wound to reduce it by one level. A healer can use her Heal check in place of the save.

Poisons, Diseases: Can you use your VP to resist the effects of poison or disease? This is a conceptual question that I haven't come to a firm conclusion on. Arguments can be made either way - or maybe you can for some and not for others. You can have poisons and diseases do VP damage, and probably also interfere with normal recovery. Or they may just require a save to resist, and if failed, you suffer some kind of wound condition.

NPC's, Monsters, etc: Mooks (non-leveled and most NPC-classed characters) aren't heroic and don't have VP. Hit them and they will suffer. Same for animals, minor undead, and most constructs, although they may have high physical resistance to wounding and/or be immune to certain effects. Magical beasts, characters with PC levels, and most intelligent monsters will have some VP.

Special abilities: Things like regeneration, damage reduction, etc would have to be reconsidered on a case by case basis.

As you can see, this system isn't fully worked out - it is more like an outline sketch and a few vague concepts. It's mostly intended to reproduce some of the conventions of high heroic fiction without requiring you to ignore inconsistencies, because they've been mostly reduced or removed.