jobe wrote:

first off let me say,i cant spell,and spuzzum seems to fully utalize this board in conversation like no other.

I'd actually have to say that Lexy is way more knowledgeable at bending English to be her tortured slave. (::suddenly pictures Lexy grabbing a novel and beating it::)

Gughunter and Leftley also have credits for verbal mastery. Guy discovered the ATOM, and Leftley can find a way to turn practically anything into a pun or into observational humour.

I'd nominate any of these three before I nominated myself for anything. Except, maybe, for spelling. I am a really champion speller -- if I ever had a spelling bee, I'd win. =)

(Lemme put it this way - out of a 150 word test in kindergarten, the only word I couldn't spell right was "villain". And thereafter I have always spelled it correctly.)

(The only other things that I can't spell are words I have never seen in print, such as medical terms (I can spell "pneumonia", though -- had that one myself, actually) or words that I wouldn't want to remember seeing in print. Like "syphilis", which I'll now unfortunately remember how to spell.)

the thiing is, in RPGs hit points are a must. it is the standard in advancment in both fitness and skill. but in such games as first person shooters, hit point advancment is unfeasable. in RPGs it is hard to determin HOW a blow is landed or where, where in a FPS a shot could be calculated to the persice area of the body.

That is where I can easily disagree. HPs are the standard in advancement because Gygax made them the standard. And as I am a firm believer of, if Gygax says it is true, then it is done to just make assumptions and avoid the detail involved in a situation.

Also, one must remember that it isn't hard to determine anything. People must also remember that there are algorithms available all over the world called "random number generators". Unless you're aiming for a specific location, you're going to strike a random spot on the human body if you strike them at all, right? Chances are, you'll have more chance of hitting someone from where the weapon is swung; that is, if I was facing you and attacking you with a sword, I would hit anywhere from your scalp to your knee (below that would be rather difficult unless I dropped a little), with more chance of hitting your shield arm or your torso.

Note that while I love detail (not realism, mind you), I despise complexity (usually -- some games, like DMT, make complexity a useful game element). That is, anything you try should be accomplished in as few strokes, rolls, keypresses, or whatever as possible, but anything you can even think of trying should be able to be accomplished somehow.

(No, I'm not a golf fan -- I meant pen strokes in a pen-and-paper roleplaying game.)

some games do not allow HP advancement but do instead start everyone out with 100 HP and allow lower numbers to be taken due to skill and armor advancement.

there are various ways to do this, but you would run the risk of an unbalanced game or worse a unique game.

Uh, you're saying that uniqueness is bad? I ever so heartily disagree, for reasons which should be obvious with my current anti-DBZ record and behind-the-scenes development babble.

You'll notice that SpaceTug, for example, isn't called "Alien: Nostromo versus the Critter", but rather a generalized name. SpaceTug is like Alien, but it isn't a carbon copy, and many of the general ideas are similar but the game itself is very different. You'll note that dozens of people that see that one online are instantly there.

I'd actually have to say that Lexy is way more knowledgeable at bending English to be her tortured slave. (::suddenly pictures Lexy grabbing a novel and beating it::)

Gughunter and Leftley also have credits for verbal mastery. Guy discovered the ATOM, and Leftley can find a way to turn practically anything into a pun or into observational humour.

You've only seen a sample of what I can do... people here think I'm mean, but they have only witnessed a tiny fraction of my power. Fortunatley for the human race, I know what I'm capable of and rarely exercise my full abilities. :)

I'm no kind of experienced RPGer, but I've given some thought to this discussion since I first saw it. In the few systems I've seen, it was clear that leveled characters (where the concept existed) did have an advantage in hit points and such that were kinda ridiculous.

The key to any improved HP system should be balancing fun with a touch of realism and with as much simplicity as possible. It should therefore be possible, for example, for a farmer to attack a knight by surprise and hurt him, but not necessarily to kill him with one blow. In the Shining Knight example, the princess's knife ought to deliver a nasty wound, but not so nasty that it kills instantly. My basic rule of thumb is: "Surprise! You're dead" is to be avoided at all costs.

I was thinking over the way combat would generally work (not being an expert, mind), and came up with a few thoughts on the topic, insofar as it could be applied to a blow-by-blow combat model in which the participants are in one-on-one or group-on-group combat.

• Groups have two attack advantages: They can each strike a blow, and when spread out they can surround a defender. Close-knit groups have a defense advantage that cancels out the surrounding effect of attackers by guarding each other's backs.
• In combat, a person is sometimes more ready to defend against an attack (by using armor, or dodging, or parrying with a weapon), and sometimes less. Combatants become vulnerable in various ways: By the element of surprise, by being busy guarding a different flank, by making a bad attack maneuver, by reacting wrongly to a feint, and so on. This extra vulnerability to attack is something that is usually temporary and lapses quickly.
• There are two types of defense maneuvers: Strategic and reactive. Common sense says that reactive defense should be automatic, while a strategic defensive move could be made in lieu of an attack.
• There are two types of attack maneuvers: Strategic and "defensive" (if you'll forgive the oxymoron). A defensive attack maneuver would be carried out during the automatic defense to someone else's attack, in which the defender has prepared themselves for just such a possibility, and had a counterstroke ready. This is, strictly speaking, a strategic defensive maneuver that, on the attacker's turn, can do damage to the attacker if the attacker acts as predicted.
• There are 3 basic types of weapon damage: Clubbing, piercing, and slicing. Damage is dependent on the momentum and angle of the blow; piercing and slicing damage are also dependent on the sharpness of the weapon.
• Hit points should be small, affected slightly by constitution but more prominently by body size. Obviously it takes a lot more to take down a giant dragon than a knight. In systems that acknowledge various body parts as targets, each part should have its own hit points.

This suggests a combat system should have just a few variables but low HP, with dexterity (lessened by armor, depending on its type), skill, surprise, and few other factors contributing to the likelihood of a hit. The damage done by a hit depends on both the skill of defense and the available armor (which may well be damaged in combat). I have no formulas worked out, but I think these things are basically laid out pretty well. The only thing I didn't discuss much was weapon range, as in the case of bows, because the application of the rules depends a lot on how close the quarters of combat are.

Lummox JR

LexyBitch wrote:

There's a concept to outrage many gamers: knights have less HP than their horses.

They should be consoled by the fact that merely breaking a leg will not generally prompt someone to "put them down."

That's cool. I'm glad to hear that more experienced gamers came up with something similar to what I did; it means I'm probably on the right track.

It seems to me a simpler HP system according to the current standard is best used in single-player modes, where a player might face down a mob of challenging nasties or take on a really tough monster singlehanded, with increasing difficulty in the monsters faced. (It's nice to finally reach the point where you can clean up an army of wolves in a few deft moves, but the novelty wears thin unless you start facing tougher opponents.) With multiplayer, more established players can use their level and status to squash new arrivals; bullying will probably always happen, but a strict "higher level, higher HP" system just exaggerates the matter.

Clearly it's more fun to get to a point where you may be able to deal with a pack of wolves handily, but they're still enough of a nuisance that ridding yourself of them gives you a certain satisfaction. This is especially true if you're marshaling your strength against a battle with a monster, or getting prepped for a major quest. A system where nothing 10 levels below you can do you any harm is a lot less fun than one where you can kick the crap out of the little guys, but they can still give you a heck of a papercut.

jobe wrote:

Leftley wrote:

there are various ways to do this, but you would run the risk of an unbalanced game or worse a unique game.

Are you being sarcastic

yes.

Oh, hell. Rather than risk blowing a fuse trying to force my mind through the cramped, twisted passages of your logic, I'll just content myself to stand in awe of your massive wit and rhetorical skill. Or just ignore you. They're pretty much the same thing.

Foomer wrote:

That's good for other people's stats, but I personally like knowing how much health my character has and how much damage he's taking. Somehow knowing that I have 4 out of 127 hit points tells me more than "You're in terrable health."

And I personally like winning. Should I therefore design games set up to guarantee that I'll win?

Only if you want to. Most people prefer to play the games with things they like.

Leftley wrote:

Foomer wrote:

Only if you want to. Most people prefer to play the games with things they like.

But things that you like aren't necessarily always good for you--or anyone or anything else, for that matter. Not only does overindulging yourself by seeking whatever you desire without restraint have the potential to ruin a game for other players, it has the potential to ruin it for you.

And yet in general games are too hard, because they are designed for hardcore gamers.

Foomer wrote:

That's good for other people's stats, but I personally like knowing how much health my character has and how much damage he's taking. Somehow knowing that I have 4 out of 127 hit points tells me more than "You're in terrable health."

Hmm, what about a numberless system with hit locations that lets you know how badly damaged a body location is? Sufficiently damaged locations are entirely useless. Partially damaged locations cause various penalties.

Seeing your chest in dark orange, when the chest indicator goes from green for full health to red which means your heart/lungs/etc. are about to fail, would be about like seeing "HP: 4/127". It would let the person know they are near death (and cause them to employ more manuevers the protect the chest) without telling them they can take one more hit from a dagger without dying.