Another NERRRRRRRRD poll

[Luvian]

Originally posted by PurpleXVI: I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on D&D, with the sort of system it has, it's the only way I can see it working, though... I suppose you could freeze HP gain at third level or so, still leaving it a bit heroic, but not insanely so. It'd mean characters could take a couple of hits, but more than a few strikes and they'd still keel over. With that sort of thing, ambushes and surprise attacks would become far more important as well. It's a tempting thing to consider. You should, of course, remember, that HP gain from con and D#'s is frozen after 9th level, then it's just +2 HP every level, so it really doesn't become as insane as the 100-200 dagger-stabs you described earlier. Maybe if you just did that after the first level, I could actually see that working. I'll have to try it in a game at some point, yet still leave the "epic" monsters with their high hit points.

Yeah, it's harder to implement an alternate hit points system in D&D because the whole system is dependent on it. In Shadowrun and Vampire for example it's harder getting hit, and you can soak damage with armor and such.

I guess having an hp cap might be worth a try, or maybe halving the dice rolls for hp. Mages would get 1-2 per levels, Fighters would get 1-5 etc. Maybe a solution could be to use the limited hp combined with Darksun's idea to give each classes innate armor class bonuses when they level. In that setting, when you level you get an innate armor class bonus when you get a thaco bonus. With the lower hp it would simulate real life a little better, you're good at avoiding getting hurt, but when you do, you feel it. It would also take care of the sure death situations that annoy me, no more surviving falling off a tower and such.

Also, you may want to look at Alternity. It's got three sorts of HP: Stun, Wound and Fatal. The Stun HP, which results in unconsciousness when it's all gone, could easily be made part of some sort of stamina system. Same for the Unisystem with it's Endurance Points alongside the Hit Points. I think it wouldn't be unfair to rule that every round or two of melee combat or other really exerting fighting(Dodging back and forth while engaged in a firearms duel, high-G aerial dogfights, etc.) would result in the loss of a point of Stun/Endurance. It wouldn't be perfect, but I think it would make for a decent abstraction.

Shadowrun got two sort of "hp" too, Lethal and Stun?. You get lethal damage from being shot at and such, and stun is used when you get punched at, shot by a tranquilizer dart...

I guess a real fatigue system wouldn't be so hard to implement, the way you suggest it. Get a point of fatigue every round or two, and the more fatigue damage you have, the more penalties you get. What I like about the idea of a fatigue system is that it can make for more dramatic fights and open up new strategies. For example in a duel a lightly armored fighter could stay defensive while the plated fighter tire, then finish him off easily. That 20th level fighter would eventually tire before he could solo those 1000 soldiers and eventually lose. You could use fatigue against your enemies too. If you can survive long enough that dragon will tire eventually, making him easier to pursue/kill etc.

[ 01-06-2007, 09:47 AM: Message edited by: Luvian ]

[JrKASperov]

Stop comparing D&D with real life. It's two different worlds. Getting hurt works differently in the imaginary world. Deal wiffit.

[Luvian]

Originally posted by JrKASperov: Stop comparing D&D with real life. It's two different worlds. Getting hurt works differently in the imaginary world. Deal wiffit.

There's more than just D&D, and more than just one way to handle it. Just because you're apparently only familiar with D&D doesn't mean it's the best system. I don't have to just "deal with it".

[Bithron]

Originally posted by Luvian: quote: Originally posted by JrKASperov: Stop comparing D&D with real life. It's two different worlds. Getting hurt works differently in the imaginary world. Deal wiffit.

There's more than just D&D, and more than just one way to handle it. Just because you're apparently only familiar with D&D doesn't mean it's the best system. I don't have to just "deal with it". [/QUOTE]That's right! This is a forum dedicated to gaming! This, if any place is the perfect place to compare "Real Life" and D&D!

[ZFR]

Originally posted by JrKASperov: Stop comparing D&D with real life. It's two different worlds. Getting hurt works differently in the imaginary world. Deal wiffit.

It's not about comparing D&D to real life. The point is to try and improve the rules. I completely agree with Luvian that the health system could use some changes.

IMHO, the HP system is great for CRPGs. I think 90% of video games, and not only RPGs, real time strategies, turn based strategies, first/third pesron shooters, have a hitpoint system. And it is working great.

But I can see how it can be a problem in pen and paper. What I personally hate most about it is that it's a linear function. So a level 2 fighter has thgaco, skills, saving throws.... etc that are just slighlty better than level 1, but his HPs are doubled!! It doesn't make much sense.
It doesn't matter if it's halved (1-2 for mages, 1-5 for warriors). So long as it's linear it still wouldn't make much sense. It would still mean that level n character can survive n times as much.
A much better system is you receive a staring of 8 HP for example (depending on class), and then receive (for example) 1 HP per level (or 1 per 3 levels for mages).
It would make sense. A higher level warrior would be able to survive some wounds that are fatal to his lesser kins, but something like falling off 10 floors, stepping inside a lava pit, or getting hit into a critical area of the body is enough to kill you.

[ 01-06-2007, 02:51 PM: Message edited by: ZFR ]

[PurpleXVI]

The purpose of games is to, to some extent or another, approximate real-life situations. Some games are more heroic than others, some are less, but in the end, they are all abstractions of "real" situations.

Some people just prefer more abstraction for purpose of ease or less realism for purpose of gameplay, others want as many details as possible to make their experience have depth and more realism for purpose of adding more challenges and things to consider.

[Sir Krustin]

Originally posted by Luvian: quote: Originally posted by Sir Krustin: My favourite system is that used by Aftemath! - realistic, flexible, yet allows heroic roleplay. Despite it's title, it isn't just limited to roleplay in a ruined civlization, but the whole game is very well done. The system is pretty complicated, but plays fairly well once you get the hang of the rules.

I don't suppose the Aftermath! rules can legally be read for free online is it?[/QUOTE]You can still purchase Aftermath! from FGU. Pretty reasonable as well - just don't expect lightning fast service - apparently he's pretty slow replying to orders, mail, and phone calls.

Even if you could get it online, I don't recommend it, though. It's very difficult to follow until you read all three books in the box set a couple of times. I learned by skipping between book 2 (which is basically a character generation guide) and book 1 (the common GM/player reference, which reads like a text book). The rules can be amazingly obtuse, until you "get" it - the the rules make lots of sense - kinda like calculus! LOL

Book 3 (the GM guide) is mostly a list of suggestions on where to take the game and has quite a few excellent essays about GMing and running a campaign in general, you could use this book with any game and benefit. Book 2 has an excellent essay on being a player.

The game can be very complex, but the designers were very cagey, most of the complexity is encountered during character generation. The game plays a lot like D20 once you get into play, I'd even say it's less complicated than D20.

One of the things that stood out to me was how few special cases there were in the rules - everything uses the same basic rules. Things like shields also become VERY useful - much more so than virtually every other game - because of the way armour is handled. There are also no artificial level breaks - the game is pretty much 100% skill based, and the designers tried to cover all the bases with study, instruction, and "learning by doing" fairly and realistically, without characters getting overpowered and limiting abuse in a realistic manner.

[wellard]

I would love to get a game of D&D started again. reading this makes me realise how much i miss it [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Sir Krustin]

Originally posted by PurpleXVI: I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on D&D, with the sort of system it has, it's the only way I can see it working, though... I suppose you could freeze HP gain at third level or so, still leaving it a bit heroic, but not insanely so. It'd mean characters could take a couple of hits, but more than a few strikes and they'd still keel over.

Star Wars D20 had a real elegant solution - characters had both an HP total and a wound total. (wounds equalled your CON score, while HP were rolled like DnD)

Once your HP were gone you were considered "fatigued", any further damage was taken against wounds. You weren't actually considered physically harmed until you've taken wounds. Critical hits resulted in wound damage, thus a lucky hit could still kill a high-level character at full HP in one shot.

[Felix The Assassin]

Originally posted by wellard: I would love to get a game of D&D started again. reading this makes me realise how much i miss it [img]smile.gif[/img]

What? The game or the bickering?