Hit Points or Wound Levels?

Best Selling RPGs - Available Now @ DriveThruRPG.com
Ah, yes, the inevitable defensive posture of "If you don't agree with me, it's because you don't understand the topic as well as I do." I was wondering when you'd go there after condescension didn't prevail. Surely arrogance will win the day!
It not about me claiming superior knowledge.but rather the key to evaluating whether a mechanic is useful that one understand what it was designed to do. I rather people go read the source material themselves than rely on what I say about the origins of hit points.
 
I don't agree, GMless are a different kind of game/activity.
Pundit? Is that you:grin:?
(OK, I'm sorry, but couldn't resist...)
More seriously: they're played on a table, often using RPG rules (though the amount of GMless freeform probably dwarfs the amount of rules-based GMless gaming just as much as the amount of freeform dwarfs RPGs in general...), and the players decide what their characters are doing in response to the situation. To me, that makes them examples of TTRPG!

Not to say there isn't overlap or GMless isn't fun. There some point there is a line where the focus shift and that occurs when you do away with the human referee as arbiter. With the shift in focus comes consequences that causes to be a different experience.
YMMV and it obviously does. Let's agree to disagree on that one, OK?

Much in the way that substituting software for a human referee makes for a related but different experience with CRPGS. Or the addition of live action for LARPS.
I also disagree on LARPs, so again, let's stick to YMMV!

How that different than my wording of players interact with the setting as their character and the referee describes the result? The players in order to do something in a setting has to tell the referee what they are doing. The referee then adjudicate the result. Most commonly instructing the players to make a roll and then describing the result.
Like a principle differs from its own application.
"The players in order to do something in a setting has to tell the referee what they are doing. The referee then adjudicate the result."
That's the principle. You can apply it to social interaction, building alliances, dealing with occult fantasy bureaucracy, or whatever.
"I attack the orc-analogue."
"Roll 3d6+Fighting, with a bonus if you have Skill Focus in applicable weapon. If you reach or pass 14, you hit the orc".
That's an application of the above principle.

Yes diceless mechanics had exist for a long time. However it dwarfed by the use of dice so to make my statement more relatable I included dice. However yes all you need to run tabletop roleplaying is a referee, players and some notepad. I think the number of people who find it enjoyable without dice are even fewer than the people who would enjoy a campaign without written rules. Which to be clear would vastly fewer than the people who like having written rules to refer too during a campaign.
Actually, diceless freeform does, in all likelihood, dwarf the whole RPG industry like a Gloranthan giant dwarfs a trollkin:devil:.
Just go to a roleplaying forum that's not strictly system-oriented, and check the number of games. Even better if the users have profiles stating their preferences...
You're quickly going to see the truth of my statement.

That not what I said, I said that the referee will have to make a ruling if the rules being used don't address the issue. I further stated if the rules on injury for some reason conflicted with how the setting worked then the rules will need to altered or ignored.
Maybe I've misunderstood you...let me quote the post I'm talking about (snipping the parts that are not relevant). For ease of reading this wall of text, I'm going to spoileblock it.

Well I am going to dispute it. Hit points are in abstraction, what 10 hit point mean is up to the referee and players to describe and it is recorded as a note if recorded at all. In contrast using Harnmaster's combat system will produces a definitive result. You get hit and suffer a serious slash to upper arm that results in 3 injury points.
So far, so good... though "describe it and it is recorded" hints at "roleplay it in case it becomes relevant".

It is akin to the difference to a RPG like GURPS which has specific mechanics for detailing a character's social status or Pendragon has for detailing a character's personality (passions) versus OD&D which those exist as notes on the back of a character sheet. If the player wants his character to be rich, or has a passion for chasity in OD&D, the system can handle it. It handled by the most basic rule that all RPGs has, the players describes and the referee adjudicates. In this case, the referee goes yay or nay and if yay the players notes it.
And that part, to me, says unequivocally "you can just roleplay what other systems put into mechanics". Since it follows the part with the description of HP loss, I find it a reasonable assumption that it acts as an example supporting the hint in the previous paragraph.

The end result the same how long does one last in a combat situation. If the same situation is setup in two different RPGs and leads to similiar results then they are equivalent. Although in one all you have recorded is that you have 10 hit points out of 40 total and in the other that you suffered 1 minor slash to the thigh for 2 injury, a minor slash to the chest for 1 injury, a serious stab to the shoulder for 4 injury, and a serious slash to the right hand for 3 injury.
In light of the above, that seems to be another example, confirming the "just roleplay what other systems put into mechanics" advice.
So yes...you have said "the Referee makes it up", but in light of what you wrote before, it sure seems like you'd expect players to just roleplay the effect of your combat descriptions (which, as you noted, are somewhat inspired by GURPS).


I am not in favor of or against hit point or any other system of representing injury. My assertion from the beginning is that hit point are not broken, they represent something, that if a referee needed the details of a specific injury it not hard to come up with a ruling using just the mechanics within OD&D.
And my assertion is that they're not broken, per se, except in corner cases when the Referee just has to ignore them (a sleeping character with 20 HP having his throat slit is one of them). That ignoring is, to me, different from a cornercase where the rules don't even address (like grappling in some systems...I think OD&D is one of them). Admittedly, I've already said that to other people, that might not be "broken", just "needing patching". (Though "it just needs patching" has no place in a rules discussion like this one, again).

I also assert that HP don't give nearly enough hints at what is happening for many Referees to allow them to make reasonable rulings for when a hit should have overwhelming effects. For example, it stands to reason (and is supported by the source material) that even some hits in combat should do this...yet all your expamples are of surprised enemies. I believe that's unnecessarily prioritizing ambushes.

OD&D addressed the issue by this



The problem the above wasn't enough so TSR got bombarded with hundreds and thousands of questions. In numerous accounts the people were taken aback at the frequency and type of question they got because OD&D was written for the wargaming community of the time. They were used to the idea that if your rules notes didn't cover it, then look at the setting of the scenario or campaign to figure out the answer and make a ruling.
Amusingly, it seems that this is how it worked with Traveller, as well...but I digress.


I don't view as a heavy modification.
You also said it's up to the individual hobbyist to determine what is a heavy modification.

The fallacy is thinking that the written rules is what govern the what the characters can and can not do in a campaign. It is the setting that defines that, not the rules.
No, sorry, in rules discussions it's not.
Here's the first link in Google.

But yet back in the thread when I explained what hit points means and how the mechanics developed the responses I got amounted too "it stupid". In course of justifying why it isn't stupid and how one can create extra levels of details using just the OD&D mechanics we arrived at this point.
I don't think anyone has answered like that, but I'm not going to scour the whole thread.
Personally, I've always tried to present arguments that go beyond "it stupid".

But yes we gotten off topic wouldn't object to a moderator splitting off the posts into a another thread.
I'd support this motion.

All mechanics are artificial game construct. RPG rules reflect an aspect of a setting or genre at a specific level of detail. What important in deciding whether X mechanics is better than Y is why it was designed the way it was? Does that design cover everything the referee thinks is important? And it is fun to use.

It obvious that for some posters the fact D&D style hit points don't detail what kind of injury the target suffers is a problem.
Well, it is a logical problem, in that HP are used to measure the effect of falls, burning, (IIRC) some poisons,and other stuff that actually doesn't logically interact with your "ability to last longer in combat".


Sure I am curious when Gronan will pitch in. He may call me a complete idiot or not. I don't have some magical insight into what was going in the minds of folks back in the day.
Well, I remember him saying that "HP represent HP". To me, that means that they are an OOC mechanism to determine the odds a given character would survive, and for how long.

If you understood how it came about, what it represents, and the trade offs in using then it worth it if adopted. If a referee thinks that the details of specific injuries are important then D&D hit points are not going to cut it. If the referee thinks that being a 2nd level character allows you to last twice as long in combat than a lst level character is bogus then D&D style hit points are not going to cut it.
And now we know why I'm avoiding "pure" HP systems (as opposed to wound systems like, say, Mythras and GURPS).

The damage from a crossbow works with how melee combat works. And it works fine for that. But shooting a guy point-blank is not the same situation as a typical melee combat.
Why? If you charge a crossbow wielder and he manages to reload just before your attack, that's exactly what's going to happen!
Why the sudden change?

Let me put it another way. Suppose you had a large knife in OD&D. And you captured a 4 HD stag and it is completely immobile and want to kill it. Are you going to rule that you have to make a to hit roll and then roll damage? Or you going to rule that the stag is skilled because you know from hunting in real life that a immobilized animal, even a large one like a stag, can be killed easily by cutting it's throat in the right spot.
Given the systems I tend to use, there would be little difference either way:devil:.
 
Let me put it another way. Suppose you had a large knife in OD&D. And you captured a 4 HD stag and it is completely immobile and want to kill it. Are you going to rule that you have to make a to hit roll and then roll damage? Or you going to rule that the stag is skilled because you know from hunting in real life that a immobilized animal, even a large one like a stag, can be killed easily by cutting it's throat in the right spot.

I'd use the coup de grace rules from 3.5, which I use in just about every game. You could call it common sense, maybe. Your stag example is easy, but it gets a bit trickier when it's an NPC holding a gun/knife to the head/neck of an immobilized PC.
 
so, how did the Coup De Grace rule work in 3.5?
 
Hi TristamEvans,

I haven't visited the Pub in some time, so imagine my surprise seeing this necro! Here are the coup de grace rules from 3.5. You can find them at:


Coup de Grace

As a full-round action, you can use a melee weapon to deliver a coup de grace to a helpless opponent. You can also use a bow or crossbow, provided you are adjacent to the target.

You automatically hit and score a critical hit. If the defender survives the damage, he must make a Fortitude save (DC 10 + damage dealt) or die. A rogue also gets her extra sneak attack damage against a helpless opponent when delivering a coup de grace.

Delivering a coup de grace provokes attacks of opportunity from threatening opponents.

You can’t deliver a coup de grace against a creature that is immune to critical hits. You can deliver a coup de grace against a creature with total concealment, but doing this requires two consecutive full-round actions (one to "find" the creature once you’ve determined what square it’s in, and one to deliver the coup de grace).
 
Does necromancy work better when the corpse has Hit Points or Wound Level?

I can remember a time when I looked down at Hit Point as a gross oversimplification. Now I like gross oversimplifications and how Hit Point just fade in the background.

The Setback Tokens from Cartoon Action Hour are even better.
 
Bear in mind it that CAH is an action cartoon emulation system.

There is no concept of damage per se. What you have dramatic "Crucial" conflicts. When you fail a dramatic conflict you get a Setback Token. If you get more Setback Tokens than your level ("Star Power"), you are taken out of that conflict. In fictional terms this can be mapped to anything, not just a whole bunch of bullet holes.

It is very abstract, but in a good way, and for me this gets with ease to the place Fate's more cumbersome Stress Tracks and Consequence reaches for. I think secret to the abstraction is that rather than the player subtracting from the character's resource when they take damage, its the GM that gives the player a Token. Psychologically that really helps loosen the notion of defeat and physical damage.
 

Hit Points or Wound Levels?

I don't have a preference for one or the other. The important thing is that the damage tracking compliments the game's style, fiction, system etc
 
I kind of made a hybrid system where hit points counted to wound level thresholds. You could absorb up to your Hit points in damage before you took an injury. hit points healed every round, but wounds took increasingly longer and applied penalties. Twice your HP in damage in a round caused shock, and shock could kill you.
 
I always thought Palladium was onto something but didn't pull it off well. For my current game, I'm using hit points but they come in groupings I refer to as levels instead of using an MDC equivalent for hp. If you are struck by a grenade, hit by a car, or other major thing, you lose an entire level of hp and then take the rolled damage.

Keeps the game heroic with the use of hp but can still be deadly without resorting to a "death spiral" of penalties. Has been working great.
 
I always thought Palladium was onto something but didn't pull it off well. For my current game, I'm using hit points but they come in groupings I refer to as levels instead of using an MDC equivalent for hp. If you are struck by a grenade, hit by a car, or other major thing, you lose an entire level of hp and then take the rolled damage.

Keeps the game heroic with the use of hp but can still be deadly without resorting to a "death spiral" of penalties. Has been working great.
I know there is often hate for death spirals, but I like them when they are done right. Nothing screams Get the hell out of dodge like an ever failing ability to perform.
Where I think they go wrong is where they hinder your ability to mitigate further harm and/or escape.
 
I know there is often hate for death spirals, but I like them when they are done right. Nothing screams Get the hell out of dodge like an ever failing ability to perform.
Where I think they go wrong is where they hinder your ability to mitigate further harm and/or escape.

I don't have anything against the death spiral having used them plenty. It doesn't happen to fit the type of game I'm running right now. I do think there can be a rough learning curve for players that are accustom to ever only using straight hit points.

Besides that, it can sure teach players how to run and fight another day!
 
I don't have anything against the death spiral having used them plenty. It doesn't happen to fit the type of game I'm running right now. I do think there can be a rough learning curve for players that are accustom to ever only using straight hit points.

Besides that, it can sure teach players how to run and fight another day!
Yeah, it absolutely affects the game feel. If it's a lethal system, a death spiral actually acts like a buffer to sudden death, but in a a D&D style game, it doesn't really serve as much of a purpose.
 
My favorite systems tend to use both.

In Cold Iron, if you are below 1/2 HP, you are -3 to most things. At 0 you are unconscious. Below -1/4 HP you are dying. Between -1/2 HP and -1/4 HP, fast healing magic like cure wounds can restore you if done with in an hour or so. Below -1/2 HP you die in 6 rounds unless you are somehow suspended (a flesh to stone spell works), you may only be healed by hit point transfer ("blood transfusion") magic. Being below 1/2 HP affects movement so retreat does become harder. On the other hand, at least some opponents will let you go. Being at 0 or lower of course makes retreat impossible. PCs HAVE used Flesh to Stone wands to suspend a dying PC who is in the thick of battle with the hope the statue doesn't get broken and they can retrieve it later.

In RuneQuest, significant damage to various hit locations has various incapacitating or instant death effects and presents various limitations on healing. Being incapacitated generally makes retreat impossible.

One additional note on tactical combat systems - many actually make it hard to disengage. If your opponent doesn't want to let you go, you are often better off staying and fighting, especially if fleeing battle requires turning your back (and thus being easier to hit).

RuneQuest talks specifically about ransoms which gives a meaningful reason to surrender. For PCs accepting surrender, this can actually increase treasure as the ransom is collected from elsewhere...

I dramatically made accepting surrender pay off in a Cold Iron campaign. The PCs had defeated a band of goblins but showed them mercy, sending the survivors packing. Several weeks later, the PCs were ambushed by a group of ogres AND those same goblins who were now under the influence of the ogres. Once the PCs and goblins recognized each other, the goblins gave a wink and a nod, and suddenly the ogres were surrounded by PCs and goblins, quickly turning the tide of what had looked like a losing battle to the PCs.
 
Banner: The best cosmic horror & Cthulhu Mythos @ DriveThruRPG.com
Back
Top