Freedom from Hit Points- Part II: Other Options

Last time I considered various modifications to traditional Hit Points systems, in order to produce a reasonable simulation of a style of combat that might be called a 'Battle of Fatigue'.

To a certain degree, such modifications work. But as I noted, they do so with some serious stain. The primary problem was Single Target Focus, i.e. it is better to focus all your attacks on a single target in order to bring him down than it is to split your fire (much more genre for the most part) between different targets.

One might wish to try to move to different game mechanics in order to avoid this pitfall, modifying them to allow the desired long drawn out battle.

There's a serious problem with this approach however- if you attempt to use any system that resolves combat as a matter of attrition, you will bring Single Target Focus into being.

That's the core problem with attrition, it means that you can only win by slowly removing a resource of your opponent- and that means the best way to win is to focus all your methods of resource removal on one target until it's gone.

There are three solutions to this and lots of variations within each. But in interest of space I'll present them in wide strokes and call it good enough.

The first is to use a serious Death Spiral with traditional Hit Points or other systems. By applying enough of a negative modifier for lower levels of damage that fall short of defeating your foe, you can make his defeat almost certain as he can no longer effectively defend or attack. Thus players will split their fire between targets in order to quickly force them to suffer said modifiers. In this way, they in practical terms have removed them from the battle.

This avoids Single Target Focus by defining meaningful damage as something else.

I have a simple reaction to such systems, why waste the time? If you're going to have the first landing of any significant damage win the battle- end it there. I don't see much of interest in a slow resolution of a matter that has already been decided.

Such an approach is just a delayed one-shot, one-kill system.


The second solution is to use one-shot, one kill mechanics like those in early RuneQuest or Boot Hill but add a mechanic I'll call 'Battle Points'. Battle Points can be spent to avoid damage, the amount you start with naturally would scale with character power. They also refresh at the start of each combat.

Additionally, say that when a character spends a Battle Point in a round he's protected against all other attacks in that round. Once he's out, he's out and he has to take the full damage effect on the following attacks.

While this works well for group vs. group, what happens when you have a group of heroes fighting a single powerful foe? Do they attack in turn until someone 'hits', and the rest go out to lunch until the next combat round? Rather silly, and attempts to make exceptions run counter to the core mechanic enough that they appear as what they are: meta-game exceptions.


The third solution is to forget about attrition completely and go with a single blow system. This is the method I used in Age of Heroes, and the approach I take in most of my HERO System games.

Here any single damaging attack can easily take a character out of the battle, if it doesn't- it also doesn't meaningfully reduce his combat effectiveness. There can still be rules for 'bleeding out' and other such events- but they would need to be rare outcomes compared to being whacked and dropped.

Character defense is based upon defensive ability (which may be active, passive, or both). Damage soak systems can fit in here in some cases. If the defense/offense is balanced well enough, such fights can last for a good long time between equals.

There are problems here.

First, while it's a long fight that may well see many unimportant wounds- it's not a Battle of Fatigue. The issue isn't resolved by someone getting tired, it's resolved by someone overcoming another's defense- it may happen on round 200, or round 1.

Second, there's a high 'whiff' factor to this system. That is most of the time your successful attack is going to be blocked, parried or otherwised avoided. Some people object to that, despite it's core realism and ability to model movie style combat.


So, no perfect choice that meets all the desired goals. One is left with choices that solves some problems, but that leave others open.

And making such choices is what game design is all about.

Next- We'll leave Battle of Fatigue behind and start examining various damage systems

Freedom from Hit Points- Part I: Traditional Battles of Fatigue

A while back, I made a post about the flaws of traditional (i.e. D&D style) Hit Point systems called The Tyranny of Hit Points. One of my readers (Wyatt to be specific) asked about alternative solutions to a rather specific case, and I thought it would be worth writing about the subject in general. So here goes.

We'll deal with these by the desired end goal, and examine possible ways of getting there. There is little doubt that I'll be unable to cover all possible options, but I'll hit a few possible methods.

First up in our series is a combat style like that found in WWE wrestling and Hong Kong Action Theater, where people are often hit with massive death-dealing or maiming blows only to completely recover seconds latter to put the smack-down on their foes. Over the top and flashy in the extreme- these types of battles are about as far from realism as one can possibly get.

One way of viewing them is that the combatants can only win after they have worn down their foe, such contests can be viewed as a Battle of Fatigue.

Thus 'damage' to Fatigue must be tracked in some way before any combat ending injury can be achieved.

To be perfectly honest, D&D style systems do this type of combat well, with HP standing in as a type of Fatigue. They do however have problems. They tend to be very static (i.e. characters standing toe-to-toe trading blows) and players also tend to benefit greatly from focusing all attacks on single targets.

For today's post, let's look at how to to correct these two problems while remaining within a D&D style HP system.

D&D 4E (and to some degree Star Wars SAGA) attempted to deal with static combat by adding various abilities to involve or force movement. Added to modifiers for positioning, and the static movement issue is dealt with to some degree.

But not completely, the very nature of HP systems mean the effects of movement and position are passing and not in and of themselves critical. Sure the extra damage you took from getting blindsided in the battle could be a turning point. But it could also just be something that happened without final influence on the outcome. That's what HP systems do, turn combat into a war of attrition- not one of decisive action. Even when decisive, that decision is delayed until all HP are removed from the losers.

Still, this methods at least causes movement even if it's not decisive. And can help maintain the illusion of battle far better than just standing there.

On top of this, D&D 4E added healing surges- which mirrors WWE and other wild styles of fictional combat quite well. Now you can get someone on the ropes, and have them jump right off them the next round.

The remaining problem- that of single target focus (i.e. it's better to drop one target than split your damage up between many for little effect) remains, and it's a big one. Generally in the source material for these types of battles, characters tend to pair off. If that's not happening, it's often a single (or each) hero fending off many foes.

And those two concepts are in direct conflict making a universal rule handing the matter basically impossible.

D&D 4E approached the one hero vs. many foes with the minion rule, an exception to the standard combat rules. This works on that end, but leaves the 'single target' focus between 'heroic' foes intact.

One could attempt an 'unengaged foe' rule, where any character who isn't engaged by a foe is given significant bonuses (to hit, damage, or both) such that it becomes extremely dangerous to leave a foe unengaged.

However this runs into problems when the sides are unequal in number. Thus out-numbering your opponents becomes a huge factor in winning. And not just at the start, even if equal at the beginning- the first side to drop one of their foes gains the upper-hand.

And that may not fit the genre either.

Still, it's an approach. Maybe you can inflict such modifiers for unengaged foes only if there you had someone who could have engaged- but instead ran off to engaged an already engaged foe (i.e. wanted the single target focus). Very artificial, but workable in a way.

Add in strong Zone of Control, toss minions in the same fight together with NPC opponents, and you have the start of something that almost works.

I wouldn't use this sort of system. Too inflexible, it does only one thing well- and it does that in a very artificial way with too narrow of a sweet spot.

Next time we'll look at non-D&D style methods of reaching our goals.

Thoughts on OSR and Agile game design

I love browsing blogs, although I bet some bloggers wish I didn't. Found this article today on Troll and Flame and I must comment.

The basic idea is an old one, debated back and forth I'm sure since the first days of the hobby. I saw it in endless detail first back on rec.games.frp.advocacy in the 90s, and in my own groups since the release of original D&D.

r.g.f.a called it design in play vs design at start. But who really cares at this point.

My point is that for many players, Mr. Harman is completely right. And for at least as many, he's completely wrong.

His OSR 'Agile' method would never have produced JRRT's Lord of the Rings. That was immense detail of setting before the first words of the Ring novels were ever set to page. Instead it would produce something less than the latest Dragonlance novel which at least has some consistent background to be had. An even better comparison would be between LotR and Improv night.

Yes, one may not use 95% of the developed background- but the 5% you do is consistent, and ties in with a much greater whole. The result is immense depth, and bodies of work like Middle Earth can project that depth upon the reader. The same is true of rpg campaigns.

Further such vast amount of detail impacts how the GM runs their campaign. It makes them consistent with the world and the in-game characters, and not the moment to moment desires of themselves or their players which is a hallmark IME of 'agile' campaigns.

More pointedly, I disagree with using software design concepts (a field that I'm well versed in myself) in campaign or game design. Software is very direct, highly specific and highly literal. Those factors keep reusability low.

World backgrounds, history, and people in contrast are not. They are diffused, generalized, and often subject to individual viewpoint.

It would thus be no surprise that tools for software would produce shallow results when applied as a control method for something as wide ranging as fantasy world simulation.

Not everyone is capable of the work involved in creating a complete fantasy world, and not eveyone can is capable of handling a detailed ruleset in play. Others must change their character and world at whim in order to enjoy themselves.

That's fine, but I wish they'd realize that their limits or methods don't apply to everyone.

Oh, one more thing. I'm getting real tired of the OSR label. Their 'Old School' has nothing to do with the 1970 gaming scene as I live it. Or any scene other than the Internet for that matter.

The Internet doesn't tell you anything worth knowing...

...about people's tasted in rpg games. Or rather, the part of the Internet you're reading likely doesn't tell you anything.

It's all too common to make the same mistake Zachary does here. One reads a number of sites online and starts to draw conclusions from them, and then goes on to try apply them to the hobby as a whole.

And that's wrong. At best it applies to those sites you happen to run.

People are still playing HERO, it's just had a new version released. People are playing D&D 4E (in some ways, the most rules heavy version of ever). People are still playing GURPS.

It just happens that he doesn't read those forums or visit the sites of those people.

IME, light rules are what they have always been: play things of online talking heads, and a small niche in the gaming hobby at large.

Can you really claim to be The Resource for D&D...

...when you've never seen a PC killed in a game before?

That was the first question that came to mind when I ran across this post at the poorly subtitled "The D&D Resource Blog for DMs & Players". A more fitting subtitle would be 'a wrong-headed newbie's best guess at how things should be done'.

Maybe to be fair, I should note that they have more than one writer on that blog. The others might be better.

Other than that, the article is about one of the first conflicts new DMs encounter when first taking up the hobby. Is one manly and thus goes with the truth of the game world? Or is one a wimp that alters that reality at whim to overturn the errors of their players?

Ameron is a wimp, willing to trade anything for 'fun'. A rather good definition of hedonism if one thinks about it, and a very short-sighted approach to just about anything.

I would have done the same as the DM who was running the game with but a couple of exceptions.

First, I wouldn't have told them a thing about the number or nature of the encounters ahead. That's knowledge they should have.

And second, the player who lost his character could run (within limits) some of the NPCs they encounter later in the game. Like some of the people they were trying to save. Sure, those may not be exciting as his former PC...

...but they're alive. And the player did get his character killed afterall.

And finally, by enforcing the reality of the game world- it remains alive too.