I remember being part of the philosophy that humans can only take so much damage. If you are hit with a sword, you are badly hurt, or even killed, unless you have a set of armour to protect you.
But now I see two separate arguments.
The first argument is that hit points are not merely the health of an individual, but a combination of the individual's luck, skill, divine favour, and personal endurance. Who could say it better than E. Gary Gygax himself?
It is quite unreasonable to assume that as a character gains levels of ability in his or her class that a corresponding gain in actual ability to sustain physical damage takes place. It is preposterous to state such an assumption, for if we are to assume that a man is killed by a sword thrust which does 4 points of damage, we must similarly assume that a hero could, on the average, withstand five such thrusts before being slain! Why then the increase in hit points? Because these reflect both the actual physical ability of the character to withstand damage -- as indicated by constitution bonuses -- and a commensurate increase in such areas as skill in combat and similar life-or-death situations, the "sixth sense" which warns the individual of some otherwise unforeseen events, sheer luck, and the fantastic provisions of magical protections and/or divine protection. Therefore, constitution affects both actual ability to withstand physical punishment hit points (physique) and the immeasurable areas which involve the sixth sense and luck (fitness).
Harkening back to the example of Rasputin, it would be safe to assume that he could withstand physical damage sufficient to have killed any four normal men, i.e. more than 14 hit points. Therefore, let us assume that a character with an 18 constitution will be able to withstand no less than 15 hit points of actual physical damage before being slain, and that perhaps as many as 23 hit points could constitute the physical makeup of a character. The balance of accrued hit points are those which fall into the non-physical areas already detailed. Furthermore, these actual physical hit points would be spread across a large number of levels, starting from a base score of from an average of 3 to 4, going up to 6 to 8 at 2nd level, 9 to 11 at 3rd, 12 to 14 at 4th, 15 to 17 at 5th, 18 to 20 at 6th, and 21 to 23 at 7th level. Note that the above assumes the character is a fighter with an average of 3 hit points per die going to physical ability to withstand punishment and only 1 point of constitution bonus being likewise assigned. Beyond the basic physical damage sustained, hits scored upon a character do not actually do such an amount of physical damage.
Consider a character who is a 10th level fighter with an 18 constitution. This character would have an average of 5 1/2 hit points per die, plus a constitution bonus of 4 hit points, per level, or 95 hit points! Each hit scored upon the character does only a small amount of actual physical harm -- the sword thrust that would have run a 1st level fighter through the heart merely grazes the character due to the fighter's exceptional skill, luck, and sixth sense ability which cause movement to avoid the attack at just the right moment. However, having sustained 40 or 50 hit points of damage, our lordly fighter will be covered with a number of nicks, scratches, cuts, and bruises. It will require a long period of rest and recuperation to regain the physical and metaphysical peak of 95 hit points.
[E. Gary Gygax, Advanced Dungeons and Dragons - Dungeon Masters' Guide, c. 1979.]
After that long-winded discussion, let me present the other side of the issue... hit points are indeed representative of physical harm, and a consequential raise in levels does not grant you ability to just be "nicked" by a charging bull, or a flying arrow.
Both of those are sound examples of why a hit points system is invalid; regardless of your personal skill, if a bull's horn hits you, it will cause serious damage, regardless of what you're wearing, or if you manage to get out of the way so it just brushes by. Likewise, you can't be "grazed" by an arrow. If the arrow hits you, it's going in. Unless, somehow, you managed to maneuver your body in such fashion as to allow the arrow to drive itself past your body, cutting your cheek, or your arm, but travelling such that the point misses entirely. While that in itself is possible, how on earth could someone manage to be so lucky and prescient to have dozens of arrows all cause the same effect?
Another defense against the hit points system is that the addition of hit points rising in value makes almost any armour system obsolete. Armour is designed to protect you from the severe punishment that attacks inflict, and is not intended to deflect blows or otherwise protect from a variety of other attacks. Thus, is one to say that when you rise in levels, the blow you suffer hurts less? I am inclined to disagree. Men are not made great by their sixth sense, or their luck. They are made great by their skill and their skill alone. What reflects skill? The ability to avoid attacks, and the ability to dish them out. When you gain in skill, you lose in the potential to suffer damage, not the damage you suffer.
One final argument is that hit points are another number-crunch method of resolving a word problem. Unfortunately, no system is as simple as number-crunching, especially to a computer.
What are your thoughts? Do you agree, or disagree, with hit points in general?
ID:154452
 Aug 29 2001, 7:39 pm
|
|
Perhaps you'd be interested in a system I'm developing for a P&P roleplaying game... this system was influenced by comic books and shows like Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Xena: Warrior Princess. Hmm. No comment. ;-) 1) It's incredibly difficult to try to hit someone standing right in front of you and miss. Interesting! Does your combat system also operate under the premise that combat contains a lot of dodging, missing, and other maneuvers that aren't detailed within the scope of the combat itself? For example, referring once again to Gary Gygax and AD&D, During the course of one minute of such competition there are numerous attacks which are unsuccessful; feints, maneuvering, and so forth. During a one-minute melee round many attacks are made, but some are mere feints, while some are blocked or parried. One, possibly several, have the chance to actually score damage. Despite the shortcomings of that method, it does explain the actual situation realistically, in addition to simplifying things immensely. For example, how many people are aware that two people firing handguns at a distance of 50 metres/yards have next to no chance of hitting each other (especially if cover is involved) unless they score a very lucky shot, or manage to get the guts to hold their fire and aim while bullets are flying around their head? Not many, I'm sure. However, your premises are equally valid. As you pointed out, there is no wrong answer. There probably never is a wrong answer anywhere, except in mathematics and any other abstraction of the universe... Speaking of combat models, this is an HP system, but it is a well-played one. And, it could easily be done without HP at all, evaluating attacks by strength and applying them appropriately. Combatants tend to be equally matched, and combat is deterministic, not random. The method is Suikoden's one-on-one combat model. Players have a selection from three options for their round; attack, defend, or desperate attack. Essentially, it works like a more advanced rock-paper-scissors system. Attacking beats defending, which beats desperate attacks, which in turn beats attacks. An attack against someone who is defending will cause the defender slight injury (1/3 damage) rather than full damage. An attack against someone who is attacking desperately will cause very little damage (1/3 damage), and the desperate attacker will do a lot of damage (full damage). A desperate attack against a defender will miss, though, and the defender will counterattack your exposed flank (full damage). Clashing attacks do full damage to both parties, as do clashing desperate attacks. Clashing defense does nothing to either party. Thus, people have to accurately predict what their opponent will attempt, all the while striving to best their foe. While this does involve wearing down, combat expires very quickly. Usually, three exchanges are all it takes to down an enemy. Or to be downed yourself. This is because in Suikoden, the characters tend to have around 400 HP and take off around 100-150 per attack; at least, they do by the time one-on-one rolls around. Hmm, maybe I should try implementing a BYOND port of that system. It's my understanding that copyright bounds can't copyright intangible mechanics, only visible data, correct? | |
Spuzzum wrote:
.... After that long-winded discussion, let me present the other side of the issue... hit points are indeed representative of physical harm, and a consequential raise in levels does not grant you ability to just be "nicked" by a charging bull, or a flying arrow. HP are just an easy way to represent "getting hurt" in a game, but it's only one of probably thousands of possibilities. The fact that people already understand the concept, and it's very easy to program will probably keep HP in the mainstream of gaming for many years. I do agree with its many inconsistancies, though. I use them in MLAAS (though not the term "hit points"), but I bend the general rule in several places that may remind you of the charging bull/flying arrow scenario. For example, security electrical damage is done with a combination of set damage numbers and a percentage of the character's maximum health, with more effect to the latter. Healthier characters will actually seem to take more damage, since I didn't want it to take many electricutions to do someone in. This might look something like: <code>damage = 10 + maxhealth/5</code>. Higher health players can sustain a little more of the current, but not too much more. I very much like Lexy's ideas on this. It looks pretty good on paper, anyway. I wouldn't mind seeing it in action. /mob/skysaw | |
Spuzzum wrote:
Perhaps you'd be interested in a system I'm developing for a P&P roleplaying game... this system was influenced by comic books and shows like Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Xena: Warrior Princess. No, because I deny that those maneuvers aren't within the scope of combat. It's a sign of D&D poisoning that you don't consider those to be combat maneuvers! If you were a pure-blooded GURPS player, you'd be amazed as I am that anyone would suggest such a thing. If your character is dodging, that's the defensive maneuver you choose. (Note: I draw a distinction between "Trying to avoid getting hit but also doing something else at the same time," and "dodging," which I define as a whole body-and-soul attempt to remove yourself completely from the path of danger. The fact that no one actually wants to get hit is reflected in the way initial advantage is calculated, and the fact that the attacker has to roll at all). Similarly, if your character is feinting, that's the offensive maneuver you choose... feinting fits into the model perfectly. It's an attack that does no damage but can increase the attacker's advantage. For example, referring once again to Gary Gygax and AD&D, I've read this before... I think of it as D&D's "excuse" for having a lousy combat system. Combat is where mediocre or inexperienced roleplayers have a chance to come alive... it encourages participation, it encourages participation, it encourages acting out. It's only natural, whatever the game model, to treat each roll of the die as a separate and discrete blow... and a good GM will narrate battles better than "You hit. 6 damage. You miss. No damage." If each roll of the die is supposed to represent the culmination of one minute's actions, this becomes difficult. My system plays out blow-by-blow, and what's more, each attack sequence will build and grow towards a logical climax. Good drama. Sidenote: D&D presents several mechanics/rules which seem to contradict this conception of a combat turn... spells and potions that affect "a single blow" affect the whole damage roll for a single turn, for instance... and no where on any critical hit tables I've seen does it allow for the possibility that the attacker landed several well-placed but otherwise minor hits. Despite the shortcomings of that method, it does explain the actual situation realistically, in addition to simplifying things immensely. For example, how many people are aware that two people firing handguns at a distance of 50 metres/yards have next to no chance of hitting each other (especially if cover is involved) unless they score a very lucky shot, or manage to get the guts to hold their fire and aim while bullets are flying around their head? Not many, I'm sure. Every GURPS player. :P Anyways, the three premises of my combat system apply only to close-quarters hand-to-hand combat. In this particular genre/mode, nobody has much of a chance of hitting anything with any sort of a gun, no matter how close they are, unless it serves the story. (GURPS refers to this effect with the optional rule "Imperial Stormtrooper School of Marksmanship.") | |
Err, I always liked the system of HP and BHP (Base Hit Points) where if the attack knows the attack is comming, it's any damage taken is taken from the HP. But if it's something they don't see comming, an assassin's knife or an arrow in the back, for example, it's taken off the Base Hit Points.
So according to the long, long bunch of info given back there, the level 10 fighter had 86 HP and 4 BHP, so regardless of how skillful he was in hand to hand combat, someone could still slit his thoat while he's sleeping and he'd die rather easily. Same for the archer's arrow, which gives him reason to avoid vulnerable places. Although, I'm sure this'd be much harder to impliment into a computer game, but I'll let the programming guru's worry about that. ;o) | |
I must concur with Lexy that the rationalizations of hit points amount to little more than excuses for a grossly unrealistic combat system. However, keeping the origins of the system in mind (it was originally designed for the wargame Chainmail) it is not unexpected that such a mechanized, number heavy approach is unsuitable to more free form playing. This also in no way negates that HP systems are still fun in the proper context. Chess, after all, is no more realistic in depicting war but it too is fun.
The true issue is one of purpose. HP are quick, easy, and almost universally understood. In this sense they are desirable for systems that desire these qualities. A more 'accurate' or 'realistic' system may desire specific wounding, critical hit tables, weapon effectiveness tables, etc. It is my opinion that, since the primary purpose of games is entertainment, systems should strive to reflect this. An obsession with 'realism' is, I believe, counterproductive in that games are meant to be a release from the pressure of life, not a reinforcement of it. People do not play fantasy games to see how easily they may be defeated by a few foes or how terrible a gunshot wound is. They play it, to a large degree, in order to do things that they would not or could not do in real life. Realistically, even an army of swordsmen would be at a loss against a 200 foot long, intelligent, heavilly armored, aggressive, fire-breathing lizard. Even a handful of goblins armed with knives would likely spell a quick and brutal end. Yet we play to be the hero, the one who triumphs despite the odds because he strides where others fail to stand. It gives us a sense of accomplishment, albeit a false one. Thus I believe any system which offers fun to the consumer cannot be inherently 'bad'. -James | |
Spuzzum wrote:
Perhaps you'd be interested in a system I'm developing for a P&P roleplaying game... this system was influenced by comic books and shows like Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Xena: Warrior Princess. Arghness :P now your making me rethink my combat system, and hp system. Lol Alathon | |
Jmurph wrote:
I must concur with Lexy that the rationalizations of hit points amount to little more than excuses for a grossly unrealistic combat system. However, keeping the origins of the system in mind (it was originally designed for the wargame Chainmail) it is not unexpected that such a mechanized, number heavy approach is unsuitable to more free form playing. This also in no way negates that HP systems are still fun in the proper context. Chess, after all, is no more realistic in depicting war but it too is fun. Yes, and this perfectly justifies why the talented but still novice player who uses his wits and lands two dozen would-be-lethal blows on the high-level PK'er has no noticeable effect whatsoever, whereas the PK'er makes a clumsy, crude, and ill-planned counter that almost completely fails and yet still annihilates the novice instantly, simply because the PK'er had killed enough goblins to achieve near-divinity. Then the PK'er assails the novice with a barrage of "hah hah j00 sux0rz d00d." What fun! This doesn't invalidate HP systems, of course. However, HP systems--or at least in particular the classic D&D-type system whereby high level characters have many many many times more HP than starting characters--tend to encourage the "sadistic adolescent power tripper" category of players, and yes, at the risk of being narrow-minded, I do believe such a system is inherently 'bad' regardless of how much pleasure sadistic players derive from it. A good game, in my opinion, is an instrument for the general furthering of enjoyment. Players who get their kicks explicitly from ruining the fun of others aren't healthy for a game, gaming culture, or society in general. And no, this isn't a general rant against competitive gaming. Cutthroat, bloodthirsty head-to-head competition is not based entirely on players ruining the fun of others; in a good game with more or less reasonably-minded players, the fun shouldn't be coming just from the sensation of winning, but from the playing. OK, I'm getting off track here. Hrm... more on this later. | |
Just curious about peoples opinions. I have decided to change the way combat works, and Hp etc are set up. BUT, as it is atm, melee attacks (done with weapon, or hands, or whatever) are done automatically to give the player the ability to do something in the midrounds. Should I change this? Or would this still be a nice way of handling it in a Roleplay Enforced game?
Alathon | |
Hmm.. hit points have always been a sore spot with me.. In my upcoming game, (not really trying to pump my game, Im just using an example) Ive basicaly done away with an experience based leveling system.. For hitpoints, for simplicities sake, in my game, will basicaly be whatever base number you have, plus your armor. So the armor doesnt add to your defence, it adds to your hit points. Final Fantasy Tactics does this with its armor for a large part, even if it retains the defence stuff..
Thats just my game however.. If I were to use another system for it, chances are Id go with a slightly different ideal. Hit Points is the basic ammount of dmg you can take.. Different people may have different hit points, but that number of hit points should not change as you level.. but your ability to avoid being hurt should @.@ Anyways, I think Im talking myself into a corner so Ill shut up ^^ *L* Elorien | |
Leftley wrote:
Yes, and this perfectly justifies why the talented but still novice player who uses his wits and lands two dozen would-be-lethal blows on the high-level PK'er has no noticeable effect whatsoever, whereas the PK'er ... assails the novice with a barrage of "hah hah j00 sux0rz d00d." What fun!(ellipses added)I thought this was a discussion of systems *in general*, not their specific application to individual scenarios. I, too, abhor unbalanced systems that encourage reprehensible, anti-social behavior. But HP systems, in all fairness, were designed for cooperative games where the players would all be of comparable power level. Play balancing PvP games is another issue entirely. This doesn't invalidate HP systems, of course. However, HP systems...tend to encourage the "sadistic adolescent power tripper" category of players, and yes, at the risk of being narrow-minded, I do believe such a system is inherently 'bad' regardless of how much pleasure sadistic players derive from it. A good game...is not based entirely on players ruining the fun of others; in a good game with more or less reasonably-minded players, the fun shouldn't be coming just from the sensation of winning, but from the playing. Hrm, it also encourages the open minded playing found in play sessions that spawned improvements. Actually, poor play balance/inappropraite ruling encourages the behaviour you mention, whether it be an rpg, FPS, or even an athletic competition. It isn't the rules, it is how they are being applied. Think about it this way: a rule that says you may drive at 60 mph is good on a freeway but bad in a schoolzone. Same rule, different situations. Likewise, I don't think we should rely on "reasonably-minded players" any more that we rely on "reasonable plaintiffs" in court; rather we should demand "better rules structures" that keep excesses in check. OK, I'm getting off track here. Hrm... more on this later.Getting off track is often the best way to find something interesting:-) | |
I thought this was a discussion of systems *in general*, not their specific application to individual scenarios. I, too, abhor unbalanced systems that encourage reprehensible, anti-social behavior. But HP systems, in all fairness, were designed for cooperative games where the players would all be of comparable power level. Play balancing PvP games is another issue entirely. Well, I'm applying it to the most relevant case, internet RPGs, which tend to allow and even encourage PvP, and represent very open player groups where people come and go at all different levels. But I still don't much like the traditional HP system even in a cooperative, closed-group game, because it still can easily turn into an arms race between the players and the GM. Hrm, it also encourages the open minded playing found in play sessions that spawned improvements. Actually, poor play balance/inappropraite ruling encourages the behaviour you mention, whether it be an rpg, FPS, or even an athletic competition. It isn't the rules, it is how they are being applied. Think about it this way: a rule that says you may drive at 60 mph is good on a freeway but bad in a schoolzone. But the fact that you're allowed to go 60 mph on the freeway undermines the rules saying that you can't go 60 mph elsewhere. People get used to being able to drive faster, or they're not paying attention to where they're driving and decide to apply the rules that are most favorable to them, etc. Likewise, I don't think we should rely on "reasonably-minded players" any more that we rely on "reasonable plaintiffs" in court; rather we should demand "better rules structures" that keep excesses in check. That's my point exactly. The traditional HP system is fundamentally unbalanced--it relies on there being reasonably-minded players with very reasonably-minded GMs guiding the game's progress. Even traditional RPGs often lack these necessary elements, and in 'net-based RPGs, you combine the worst of players with the most inattentive of GMs (most admin staffs don't have enough time to do much more than work on the game itself, remove the worst problem players and keep track of the biggest exploits). Why use an unreasonable power/level structure and hope that the people that use it will be reasonable enough to keep it in check, rather than simply using a more reasonable power structure in the first place? | |
Elorien wrote:
Hmm.. hit points have always been a sore spot with me.. In my upcoming game, (not really trying to pump my game, Im just using an example) Ive basicaly done away with an experience based leveling system.. For hitpoints, for simplicities sake, in my game, will basicaly be whatever base number you have, plus your armor. So the armor doesnt add to your defence, it adds to your hit points. Final Fantasy Tactics does this with its armor for a large part, even if it retains the defence stuff.. I'm thinking of making a system is one whereby Hp is in percentage (100%). The damage caused to mobs should then be sujected to control (luck) by the GM or code. For example: A Knight in the training camp after a hard day can be killed by a farmer. The Farmer basically have to move in and get a "lucky" hit. Why based on luck? Because under usual situation, a Knight should not be killed by a farmer. | |
Hey everyone. Been awhile since I've visited these boards. This post is a bit long winded, but this is one of the topics that I've been discussing for a long time now. I've written several posts and design documents on this topic, both here, my web site and on the MUD-Dev list. I've not spent a lot of time reviewing what I've written here, but the gist should be here.
The Shining Knight Analogy One of my favorite analogies is, "A knight in shining armor kills the evil guardian of the tower containing the damsel in distress. He then climbs the tower, enters through a window, and finds himself in the bedchamber of the damsel who is across the room. "Proclaiming his great deeds and that he has come to rescue the damsel, he asks for his reward, a kiss. The damsel approaches the knight and while he moves to embrace her, she sticks a dagger in his gut."
1st Generation Game Systems Just today I was explaining how come I was already bored with Anarchy Online (same conversation I had when I became bored with Everquest, Asheron's Call, Gemstone, DragonRealms, etc). In 1st Generation RPG systems, hit points are continuously raised as the character progresses. This is rationalled in a variety of ways but it all leads to the same thing - there are those of us that find these systems repetitions and boring after a while. Typical Senario -
2nd to 3rd Generation Game Systems A breath of fresh air entered my RPG design life when ShadowRun from FASA was released. This game handled things differently than the 1st Generation RPGs. Yes, characters increase in skills. But not hitpoints. Hit points = 10 + body attribute (where the attributes can not change). Skills are increased, but the points didn't increase the percentage die roll to succeed - instead they determined the number of chances to succeed. Instead of rolling against one's own skill, one rolled against a difficulty factor. Etc. The changes from previous systems went on, including one of the first skill-webs to be developed. As a table top game, I didn't care for it too much since it took too long to resolve combat and do things, whereas the more simple D&D systems could be resolved quickly. Due to copyright issues, I wasn't able to convert the system into a computer game (which would have sped it up), but I could take the concepts behind the system and adapt them for myself. In my preliminary game systems using an adapted system, I was very pleased with the results. It still had some flaws though. So what could I do to fix these flaws? Galaxies Online, FAQs was released. As I read about the game design, everything clicked for me. After six years since ShadowRun, something woke a spark in my creative juices... What would happen if everyone had X number of points to use to create a character. Their dream character. The character they want to have at the end of the game? We create our end-game character and we live out our lives, slowly growing into the template we had created for ourselves. If I'd chosen to be a genius in physics, I might have to guide my character to an advanced school of physics before my character would realize this potential within herself, but she has direction. If I made a mistake, and decide later on that I will never have my character learn physics, I could take steps (perhaps something in-game) to re-direct that potential into other areas. | |
As a side note, in a persistant world it's the community that exists there that makes the game enjoyable and addictive in the long run. The system should be designed to support that community. The question for the designer of the system is, "What sort of players do I want and how best can I address their needs?"
For shoot-em-ups, short-time games, the hit-point model found in 1st Generation RPGs works fine. FunCom is doing another massive role-playing game (forgot the name) based on managing a Viking village. This is the sort of game where a hit-point system might not be desirable. Be interresting where they take it... | |
Hmm.. HP as a percentage.. I didnt think of that..
sorry for the late reply btw, i just moved, -and- started college.. damn puter at home hasnt even had its cable set up yet x.x; so Im stuck on crappy lab computers *L* Hmm.. actually... ya know.. I like that idea O.o; set up hp as a percentage, and then armor takes off a bit of the percentage, and defencive skills have a change at taking off some percentage.. Course when making high level mobs youd wind up with mobs dealing multiple 100%s of dammage so that more skilled players would still take dammage even with high ammountes of armor and defensive skills.. but it could be workable.. Itd prolly also work well with an idea I had.. most graphical rpgs list hp as numbers.. but some muds use a description.. so at 100% HP your HP would be listed as 'Excellent' and go down to like 10% which would be listed as something like 'Critically Injured'... Would be kinda neat.. maybe thats how Ill do my game ^-^ Thanks for the thought Elorien, who hopes shell someday have a chance to work on her game again x.x;;;;;; | |
first off let me say,i cant spell,and spuzzum seems to fully utalize this board in conversation like no other.
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. 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. | |
jobe wrote:
first off let me say,i cant spell,and spuzzum seems to fully utalize this board in conversation like no other. So your saying that a Roleplaying game cannot have hitlocations? Like aimed hits, and things like that? Forgive me if I disagree 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. Alathon | |
My feelings on HP are the same as my feelings on nosferatu: there's valid arguments for all sorts of things, it comes down to which system you need for the effect you're going to.
Perhaps you'd be interested in a system I'm developing for a P&P roleplaying game... this system was influenced by comic books and shows like Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Xena: Warrior Princess. It's kind of a comic book/action combat system.
It's based on three premises:
1) It's incredibly difficult to try to hit someone standing right in front of you and miss.
2) It's also somewhat difficult to try to prevent someone from hitting you and fail.
3) Combat between evenly matched opponents, therefore, will be based mostly on rhythm and momentum... combat between unevenly matched opponents will be quick and brutal. Either way, very few "hits" will decide the matter.
Here's how it works, in a nutshell. My dexterity is 4. Yours is 6. One of us takes initiative... goes on the offensive, initiates an attack. If you attack first, you have an "advantage" of 2 because your dexterity is higher than mine. If I attack first, I have an "advantage" of -2 because my dexterity is lower.
I pick a maneuver... each maneuver has a difficulty of 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, or 20 (dice sides), 4 being a basic attack and 20 being a complicated and showy "finishing move." I have to roll lower than my (dexterity plus advantage) to succeed at the maneuver. If I succeed, I can add the amount I rolled to my current advantage. If I fail, then I lose the initiative and you get advantage, equal to the amount I exceeded my target by.
For example, with my Dex of 4 and my advantage of -2, I have to roll a 1 or 2 to hit. If I roll 1, my advantage goes up to -1. If I roll 2, it goes up to 0. If I roll 3, you get the initiative and 1 point of advantage. If I roll 4, you get initiative and 2 points of advantage.
In the meantime, you get to pick a defensive maneuver. If you're successful, you can cancel any damage/effects of my attack, except for the change in advantage... and certain difficult defensive maneuvers can even nullify that, or lower my advantage, or even inflict damage themselves. Damage from maneuvers is specific... injury to limb, dazing blow to face, and so on, instead of generalized HP. You can also ignore the defense and try your own attack, but that will generally only get through if mine fails, so it's a desperation ploy.
The goal isn't to wear your opponent down, but get your advantage high enough that you can use a maneuver that will take your opponent down in the desired fashion (dead, subdued, staked through the heart, decapitated, whatever. This system works best if a lot of characters/monsters have a specific way they must be killed.) Since most of the time, the defender will choose to defend, comparatively few attacks will "get through", but if the attacker can keep the defender on the defensive, he or she can gradually maneuver the victim into a vulnerable position where the final blow can be landed.