Hi this is my first post here, and I am overjoyed that a place like this exists!

I'm almost done with my 100th neurotic attempt at writing (yeah, it may seem repetitive) a fantasy rpg, that I started a while back. And if I keep it up I might have this monster done soon. The basics are done, got some stream-lining to do before I venture into play testing. This might sound like it's all hack and slash, but because of the combat system sword-play might be something avoided until characters are high level.

What makes this game, I think, revolutionary is a combat system I'm calling "Lethal Combat". Basically, if someone swings a giant warhammer it's going to break bones, and it's not reflected by doing X points of damage which are subtracted from X amount of hit points.

So I've been watching movies like Conan and Gladiator over and over and trying interperate that style of combat into an rpg. I've also been researching tons of forensics, finding out estimated survival times of stab victims and so on. And I'm trying to make a system that is realistic, and fun at the same time.

With weapons cutting off heads or just plain stabbing, hit points are becoming obsolete in my game. Because a stab is going to have other effects than a slash from a sword. Although, I have to admit hit points do exist to an extent, but they function differently than traditional games that I know of. And they sit more in the background as an alternative which is synthesized into my Lethal system.

Parts of it are worked out on tables (kind of like M.E.R.P. critical tables - the Middle Earth game), and when tables aren't used each weapon itself has short rules of it's own. Most of combat is spent parrying, blocking, and dodging which may or may not turn out to be frusterating to players. I'm hoping the Lethal system will offer an oppertunity to develop interesting defensive tactics during game play until fatal blows are struck.

So, for the game theorists here at the Forge, I'm interested in your opinions and knowledge of other games that may have tried to break the "hit point barrier". To my knowledge it hasn't been done. And to be honest, hit points have never broken a sense of disbelief for me, can't stand them in pen & pencil rpgs and can't stand them in video games.

*On a different note, the articles here are great! And eventhough they did make me a little more crazy because they covered problems I was dealing with on my own. Like the random attribute determination, covered in the "Heart-Breaker" article, I really wished I discovered it earlier ... my game uses 3D4+5 lol! I didn't see that in the list, but someone did do 2D6+4. It absolutely kills me! Jokes aside, I have been dieing to talk about this stuff with people who know about rpg's. Thanks again for this great resource.

-Paul

It has been done. Many many times.

Amber Diceless
Werewolf, Vampire, Mage, Wraith, Changeling
Castle Falkenstein
Continuum, Narcissist
Risus

And that's just off the top of my head.

Paul,

The game you may want to look at to see an approach very similar to what you want is The Riddle of Steel. There's a free quick-start on their website that should describe the basic system, although the full system is much more complex.

What you want can be done well: I think The Riddle of Steel did it pretty well, but I'd love to hear your take on it.

Vaxalon wrote: It has been done. Many many times.

Hey Paul, welcome.

I have to second Riddle as a good example of what you describe. You can get killed by a dagger in that game. Health points still exist but they are really secondary to see if you can hold up against the blood loss of multiple wounds. The specific wound dealt may or may not kill you right there.

As for resources, yeah the Forge is pretty helpful. There's a lot cool stuff being discussed on blogs too. My favorite one being Vincent "lumpley" Baker's blog at http://lumpley.com

Hey Fred, compared with Riddle and with what Paul says he wants to do WoD and CF are bog-standard generic wound level/hit point systems.

best

Trevis

Cyberpunk 2013 uses a wound system, not HP. Not the 2020 version though, they went to an HP system that was not as good. See if you can find the box set of the original cyberpunk and check out the Friday Night Firefight rules. They're excellent IMHO.

Also, I'm developing a system with "Direct to Trait" damage. No HP at all. Once your Trait level reaches -WIL, -MRL or -WIL, you have a catastrophic failure of that trait that can leave you dead, unconscious, a vegetable, paraplegic or worse. Yeah... even worse is possible in Orion's Arm. ;c) So far, alpha playtests of this damage system are incredibly encouraging, and hopefully some day soon, I'll be posting here asking for beta testers. :c)

So you can check out what we're doing on my website at the link at the bottom for ideas. Hope they help. ;c)

I'm playing around for an HP'less system for a game I'm working on as well. I've seen this done well before (Cyberpunk did it well, as noted), but I'm trying to figure out something a little different. In my game you play young children from our world trapped in a fantasy world, so I'm trying to reflect that. Kids who cannot sustain alot of damage in a world where everything is nasty and violent. Combats not the main thing in the game (exploration and fun adventures is what its all about), but the threat of voilence is always something that hangs in the background.

-jake

This is all this great advice, you've all given me alot to research to do, and are giving me a perspective on where my concept stands.

And no offense taken Vaxalon, first impressions are also great advice and I agree with what you said ... the narrative approach is probably the best solution to non-hit point based games, and it is something I overlooked. When I read what you wrote, I thought to myself duh!!! I'm an idiot! I own Vampire, Mage and Wraith ... it's just been years since I played them and I forgot, lol.

And what I mean by narrative is, games that don't let themselves get bogged down with a giant systems, but are loosely designed allowing for stroy to be rule of rules. (I bet there is already a definition provided in the articles, which I need to familiarize myself with more, ecspecially if I decide to pursue game design further.)

Anyway, I'm sold on Riddle of Steel just by the name ... that one is new to me, I'm going to check that one out first. Thanks again everyone!

*I also have more stuff to add, although I haven't researched it thourghly yet. The d20 system people mentioned the new editions of the Star Wars game has another approach to hit points, which uses bruise and wound points. And I'd also like to mention the video games Bushido Blade and Tenchu, which is also another approach to non hit point use. It's based on a players hand and eye coordination which can't be easily translated into a table-top game.

But, I don't want to get into detail about video games, because programming is a very different approach to game design. But it is somthing I keep in mind, because I think rpgs have made a giant impact on video games. But they are different, such as when Vampire was translated into the video game Bloodlines, they ended up resorting to a hit point (blood points) based type game. (Although, it's a fun game.)

I'm going to go back into my cave, and lurk some more on the forge.

-Paul

Well, you asked for my opinion of Riddle of Steel and ... I like that game alot and I'm considering buying it, not just to study it but to play it. This is why:

(This post might sound more like game theory, but I wanted to end the string I started with a conclusion.)

I've done some research on these games, but I stoppped focusing on how non hit point systems work becuase I started to discover that isn't what is at the core of a good combat system. And also after discovering Pheonix Command, it taught me that a combat system who's goal is realism isn't exactly a realistic goal.

I've tried to break down as many combat systems as I could find, like GURPS ,Shadowrun, White Wolf Games and the dinosaur systems like D&D and Palladium. And I found Friday Night Firefight, and broke down the quickstart Riddle of Steel combat.

I discovered 3 universals, excluding Riddle of Steel which I found to be outstanding in a way I havn't seen reviewed. And it's not just because combat is the theme of the game.

All combat systems have these qualities (although they may work differently mechanicly).

1. An Attack Roll. A way to measure if a strike hits or not, and a resolution.

2. Sneak Attacks. Even in systems that do not use initiative, attackers are rewarded for getting the drop on the target.

3. Locked Combat. For some unknown reason characters decide to take turns exchanging blows. (I beleive this is a game mechanics error, because of the tendency to use a turned based approach.)

Riddle of Steel stands out because it uses simultaneous exchanges of blows. And once they are exchanged other factors in the system give reason to keep combat locked, such as taunting and melee range which creates an atmosphere of "it's is not exactly the best option to run." In short, characters are given reason in the system to confront and deal with each other.

And there you have it. I have a greater perspective now, that I feel I owe to the Forge, and my whole concept of my homebrewed game has changed. It's time for a massive overhaul of my game, but it's for the better!

Don't forget to check out The Shadow of Yesterday and FATE. Both those games do away with hit points and they work quite nicely. Both can be downloaded in PDF form for free too, which makes them even better.

Welcome to the Forge, Paul.

I really liked the lethality of KULT when I first got it; that's yet another way of not using hit points (basically, each weapon has a D20 range for causing scratches, light wounds, severe wounds, or instant death).

So, does your system have a mechanic that allows player characters to survive longer than others? A very lethal system can be fun, but it can also cut down the narrative when it constantly wipes out PCs :)

No one has mentioned Burning Wheel. It's like TROS, only... better. Sorta.

"you can get killed by a dagger in that game"


HEY! I'll have you know, daggers were and ARE very deadly weapons. A place I studied at a few years back caleld AEMMA (Academy of European Medieval Martial Arts) had an entire section of learning dedicated to the dagger.

Never discount their deadliness. They can puncture platemail quite easily (provided they possess the correct sort of hilt/guard configuration) and can sever a hand with minimal effort :)

But ahem...i digress.

Give the no hitpoints thing a go....its a not so difficult thing to work out, but keeping it BALANCED is the main problem. No one wants their PC to die in their first skirmish, period. Make sure if you dont use hitpoints you ahve some sort of countermeasure (a soak pool, for instance a-la white wolf)or a cyberpunk-esque system. Not a clone of course, but something so that Conan bad-boy doesnt get killed by a pigmy with a short knife.

This is a classic playstyle conflict.

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."

Hi, Paul.

You might find the thread Survey of Damage Systems insightful. It was my attempt to dissect how damage works across the dozens of game systems on my shelf.

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."

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

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

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

I second that -- that example of play rocks.

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

Resonantg wrote:
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 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

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