No Hit Points?

[Resonantg]

Sim: "Fights are deadly. People die."
Nar: "Fights are exciting, but if an important charcater dies, it'll derail his story."
Gam: "Fights are fun to play out, but it's a drag if a carefully constructed warrior dies because of a bad roll."

Oh yeah, I'm most definately a simulationist first, with a touch of Gamist and Narrativist in me for color. ;c)

HEY! I'll have you know, daggers were and ARE very deadly weapons.

Yeah, I have the same attitudes about whips ever since I met a whip master.  Wow, those are underrated in gaming.

but then again... I digress. ;c)

[indie guy]

This is a possible solution to a one hit one kill type of game. But the idea is dark. Gamers have played looting, psycopathic, homicidal manics in dungeon crawls at one time or another - but generally don't think of it that way, maybe it doesn't matter to think about it.

These are 2 situations that involve one-attack kills, balanced by adding a buffer game system to avoid combat. The idea is to prevent lethal combat by a psycological battle.

For X-men fans: Who would win Cyclops or Wolverine?

*Cyclops shoots laser beams, he can stay away from Wolverine and blast away.
*But Wolverine is a psycopath, all of his strikes will be meant to kill and all    he needs is one. Cyclops will only try to incapiciatate him.
*But Cyclops knows if he loses, Jean Grey will have to defend herself from Wolverine! Wolverine would drive him to kill.
(What kind of game system would allow us to resolve this dispute?)

A Story of Revenge
Right now the system itself is really funky (has lots of holes, contradicts itself) but it might give you ideas.

*The killer (NPC) has a maxed out killer instinct score allowing him to perform lethal attacks. He does not care about his life or others.
*The player is a detective, he's fired his gun while on duty before, but his killer instinct score is not near homicidal ... yet.
*Once players max the killer instinct score, they will be hunted down and imprisoned or killed. When they are close they need to seek therapy.

GM: You have tracked down the killer and cornered him in a room. No one else is around, there will be no witnesses to what transpires.
Player: I hate this guy, enough to kill him! But if I don't stop him now he'll get away.
GM: Even though your (passion score) allows you to kill. Your (justice score) will not let you.
Player: I make a (non-lethal attack) and try to overpower him.
GM: (Warning) If you engage in combat, nothing will stop him from making a (lethal attack) towards you.
Player: He needs to be stopped! Here and now!
GM: The killer does not expect some one like you to attack (he knows the player is not a killer), you gain initiative.
Player: I'm going to knock him down.
GM: You succeed (rule), the killer (loses an action).
Player: I am going to beat him down, and force him to submit.
GM: You start the (subjugation round), he offers some resistance but begs you to stop.
Player: I tie him up.
GM: After you tie him up, the killer begins to (taunt) you, trying to make you perform a (lethal attack). You (fail) and pull out your gun.
Player: But if I kill him, I'll gain (killer instinct points). I try to resist (secondary save).
GM: You (suceed). The killer laughs at you (bonus taunt). (Player does not resist, makes type one fail), You must begin (a lethal action).
Player: I need a way out, I cover him in gasoline and walk outside and (lower killer instininct possibility).
GM: You go outside, covering him in gasoline gives you a (negative modifier). Your (passion score) is now above (justice).
Player: I try to rationalize that I should call the authorities (killer instinct save).
GM: You fail, your (passion score is now full). If you don't kill, you'll gain an (insanity).
Player: I throw a match on the gasoline, but I don't watch him die. And I make sure the whole house burns up, I don't want to leave behind any evidence or memory.
GM: You imagine the killer dying and hear him scream, you justify it. You become more like him, gaining (one killer instinct point.)

Thinking of combat on a psycological level changes things, and it doesn't matter who can do the most damage - what matters is who's willing to do it. In trying to make a simulationist combat system where daggers and even whips can kill in one hit, a balance can be found by making another system to avoid violent confrontations.

-Paul

[quozl]

Paul, if you make that game, I would love it.

[xenopulse]

I second that -- that example of play rocks.

[Mike Holmes]

Paul, what you have above is an example of what we call "Structured Design." The next step is to start to create mechanics that can really deliver play that looks like the text indicated. And here's the hard part. Forget what you know about how such a system might work. Just make the system that does what you need. Throw out everything else.

From that POV, Hit Points are the least of your worries. Now you have to consider much more radical things like eliminating skills.

The bleeding edge of this sort of design, and to follow the supers example, would be games like Capes, and coming soon, With Great Power...


Truth be told, I've been on this particular wavelength for a while now. At Origins I had an interesting talk with Thomas Robertson about the nature of will in terms of accomplishing things. I think, for instance, that it's telling that the Marshall report from WWII says that 90% of combat effectiveness has nothing to do with aim or skill of that nature, but with the simple act of pointing the weapon at another human being. The most dangerous person is the one who has the most will to kill.

Most RPGs leave this entirely in the hands of the players, in the name of "heroism' (as in heroes don't balk at killing). But then have some specialized rules for "fear" and such. Your concept really does better, basically asking the player to create some interesting statements based on his selections. That's the key. Make sure that certain of the options aren't tactically superior to others, that they're just choices for the player to make.

In TROS, this is handled quite a bit with their Spiritual Attributes. Another game to check out that deals somewhat with this is Unknown Armies. Look for the Madness Meter concept. But these games still focus on a lot of stuff that's probably not central to your idea. Basically consider how a game would look if you only had Spiritual Atributes and Madness Meters or the like. Instead of all of the standard mechanics about "damage" and such.

Mike

[Hereward The Wake]

I always felt that HP were a very bad way of representing damage, and suggestions mentioned before work well, what really matters is where one gets hit, then the kind of damage it does, whther it immediately incapacites or takes some time to do so, or if you are very luckly doesn't really affect you at all.

Going on some of the last points and somethings that were mentioned in the Fear and Confusion thread, that basically Fear and confusion should be the normal mode once a combat starts, any progression out of this should be tested/determined as part of the game, if one is lookin for soem kind of 'reality'.

JW

[Vaxalon]

I think that hit points are a decent way of representing damage when you don't want to spend a lot of time figuring out location, damage type, and various other effects.  Using the complete GURPS damage system can require four different dice rolls, JUST to determine damage and its effects.

Personally, I can't think of what kind of game I'd be willing to spend that kind of overhead on.

[Hereward The Wake]

I guess it depends on how one uses hit points, If one takes the more ocnventional approach where one works the location damage done and its affects then one is taking the long winded approach, but if one uses the conventional HP damage done system and then says that small scale damage doesn't warrant all the extra work, where as major damage, loosing lots of HP says that it must be a major affect and then you go through the extra steps!? Wasn't this something that you could do in AD&D? Though I've not played since the early 90's so cant say for sure.

Or of course go with a system that does it all in the fewest rolls possible!

JW

[Frank T]

Paul, if you make that game, I would love it.

Me, too.

- Frank

[Vaxalon]

I know players who would definitely try to arrange things to maximize the killer instinct points.

[Resonantg]

I know players who would definitely try to arrange things to maximize the killer instinct points.

That was a problem we had with OA/RPG in the early stages.  If all combat is based on too few traits/skills, all players do is min/max to that and make combat monsters since that is the only way to survive in some games (viscious circle effect included).  So for us, we made as many traits valid for combat as possible.  You can be effectively removed from combat from any effective Trait you have going below zero.  Also, half the total traits have some to a lot of effect on combat when they get depleeted.  All the physical traits, some cognitive and even behavioral traits all have actual use in combat.  In development, we felt this was about the only way you can help those who aren't combat monsters to possibly survive or "outthink" those who concentrate on raw speed, strength, accuracy and toughness.  The traditonal combat monster now can be out strategized, feinted and surprised by a smarter opponent in what I'm working on. 

Of course, I'm working on theory and some alpha tests that have some problems still, but slowly getting ironed out and my players really enjoy the concept so, I figure I'm on the right path so far.

Hope this adds some to the conversation. :c)

[Justin Marx]

All the physical traits, some cognitive and even behavioral traits all have actual use in combat.  In development, we felt this was about the only way you can help those who aren't combat monsters to possibly survive or "outthink" those who concentrate on raw speed, strength, accuracy and toughness.  The traditonal combat monster now can be out strategized, feinted and surprised by a smarter opponent in what I'm working on. 

Of course, I'm working on theory and some alpha tests that have some problems still, but slowly getting ironed out and my players really enjoy the concept so, I figure I'm on the right path so far.

I'm interested to hear how that works - I'm using the same philosophy but without direct trait loss as a mechanic. I like this methodology because it allows non-combat characters to not be wholly useless in combat, encouraging people to play non-combatants without fear of being wiped out in any combat scene.

If a discussion or description doesn't fit with this thread, I would love to read it in another.

Justin

[Frank T]

I don't think this thread is about a ballanced combat system. It's about a combat system that feels real. There are, in reality, combat monsters. And so will be in this game. If your incentive is to play a combat monster, you just as well might. We'll see what Paul's game will teach you about it.

I have a friend who spent his youth with street brawls and the like, then was sent to a karate dojo to learn to channel and control his aggressiveness problem. He told me about how there are extremely skilled karate fighter, like fourth, fifth Dan, that will lose a full contact fight to an orange belt, just because he is that much more aggressive. He goes into the fight to hurt, no matter what, and doesn't even hesitate. For all his skill and fine technique, his oponent just doesn't have anything to put up against that. But my friend also admits that his aggressive attitude got him into loads of trouble. I believe Paul wants to capture that issue: What does it take to become a combat monster? A killer, even?

- Frank

[Hereward The Wake]

Thats true, I think that we all role, play for what are ultimately escapist reasons in one form or another, therefore one often encounters the Fight Monster, often in those people least liekly to have a fight in real life, but anyway.
And as you point out, in reality, the dertemination to beat the the bejesus out of someone often counts more that than than the martial skill. Ultimately it is more the mental reaction to damage taken that will affect the person fighting than the physical damage itself. After all people can run on smahed ankles etc at least fro a little while.. This is why most hit point systems are at fault at leats in application as they temd to allow one to keep going at full effect till you HP are used up. But equaly asystem that uses the deteriation of stats based upon damage etc, needs to take into account of the 'willpower' for wont of a better word, of the PC. Other wise it does not allow for the unusual circumsatnces that one reads about, or expects from the heroic type charecters that we often want to play.
Of course using the players perception of the harm that they are taking as the PC and making them realise its consequences is another but makes the experience a bit repetative as well as the players attitude is unlikely to vary much after the initial adjustment time.

As has been mentioned the balance IMO should be on the actual affects of damage, short and long term and some reflection of how the PC reacts to what is being done to it and what the long term mental affects os this will be. Wasn't there a game 'Fear' I think that used Willpower as ascore and the more shit you went through, more of your willpower you lost and there fore the less likely you were to do dangerous things. I remember that being a good thing to make players think as you had to work out what you were doing, the fight monster would declare that they were going to charge the Vampires etc and then have the Umpire tell them that they didn't have the willpower to do it, regardless of health.

JW