Hitpoint alternatives

>>49353985
damaging stats is one of the best ways to represent damage imo. That way you get weaker as you take more damage, and become unable to function normally. Traveller does this pretty well. Its not even un-fun, as usually the gap between "fine" and "unconscious" is very small, so its not often you have everyone badly wounded, crawling around trying to do things.

In terms of standard D&D, you could have AC be higher across the board, but all hits roll on a crit table that ranges from minor cosmetic damage to install death. Combat could be terribly deadly but the higher AC could mitigate that somewhat. You could even have a system for damaging armor when the attack "misses" because of the armor. This would slowly degrade the armor over time and lower the AC needed to do damage.

>>49354196
Install death = insta-death

>>49353985
Ablative Wounds that can get patched up fairly quickly, but when they get low (not when they run out, but get LOW) the person is open for a grievous Injury that really hurts and possibly impairs a stat.
I think it was from 3e Unearthed Arcana

>>49354196
>>49354203
>Would you like to use the wizard?
>"Fuck off and grab the cleric!"

I know it's sorta an HP system, but shadowrun does a pretty good job, the more damage you take the worse you are at doing things, and there's both physical damage and stress damage which is easier to heal and won't outright kill you

>>49353985
It sort of depends on how you want the game to play out.
HP really comes down to How much shit you can take before you hit the ground.

If you have a lot of good crunch to explain the incremental losses of function of a stats based system then go with that, but it will take a lot more work and math then a simple if you take x damage you are out.

ways to make HP more interesting is Massive damage be it a percentage or a set value will result in being inconvenienced in some way. for example Symbaroums Pain threshold system.

If you want it to be supper realistic, slap HP layers on each body part to represent armor, clothing, skin, muscle and bone throw in a Harn type to hit system and have your players fall apart over the course of a game like world war II battleships.

Im about to start a High Mortality game for my players where they have 6hp as humans. only using d6s for everything. A bunch of crunch is stolen right out of Traveler and I hope it works out.

>>49353985
One of the better variations on hit points is the Rolemaster approach. RM characters "concussion hits" which represent the character's ability to take a beating, rather than their actual level of injury. Every attack roll is cross-referenced with the target's armour type on one of about 8 million tables (because this is Rolemaster, after all), with a unique table for every kind of weapon. The results on the table indicate whether you miss, inflict concussion hits, or inflict a critical rated in severity between A and E (with specific criticals for different kinds of attacks, and sometimes more than one per table, because Rolemaster).

End result of all this is that heavy plate makes you far easier to hit, but also means you are much less likely to suffer a critical wound, instead taking lots of concussion damage that slowly beats you insensible inside your tin can. Lightly armoured characters, on the other hand, are harder to hit but tend to take critical injuries that add extra concussion damage, or bleeding, or stun effects, or if you're unlucky a wide range of nasty and potentially fatal injuries. (This being Rolemaster, it's quite possible to take a shot to the kidneys and die 2 weeks later.)

It all sounds hideously complicated, and it is in theory, but in practice you just roll a d100, add your attack, subtract their defence, then look it up on the table you printed out for your weapon. Then roll for the critical you just inflicted on that goblin's nads.

>>49353985

Oh, goodie, this is a fun chance to come up with alternate systems!

>What do you think are some good alternatives to hit points?

I came up with this HP/body level sort of system, which I never really completed

There's 3 levels, Fine, Gross, Deep. Damage is often dealt this way too. Like a stab wound does deep damage unless you have protection. Armor also has this system applied to it.

Fine is your surface and by far has the most HP. Humans have 10.

Damage there is bruises, scrapes, cuts. It doesn't do shit to you mostly, but you can be whittled down and open up Gross damage. On a knife with fine damage it's nicks and scratches, maybe a few rust spots

Gross is basically major body parts, a human has 5, 1 for each limb and then one for torso. A knife would be dulled from having this sort of damage, it no longer functions properly as a knife.

Once that HP is gone that body part is basically trashed.

Something like a troll might have more showing that their body parts are more sturdy, or something like a small dragon would have more showing they have more limbs.

Then there's deep wounds, which are basically you loose them and you're dead. Humans only have 2-3 (Torso/head wounds) For the knife? The Knife is broken, or encased in corrosion, it is no longer a knife, it has ceased to be.

You can sacrifice any 'deeper' HP to save higher HP (targeting system I hadn't finished) and sacrifice any gross wound to save a deep wound. (Blocking a sword blow to your neck with your arm)

This is where the idea started to come apart somewhat and I hadn't finished figureing it out

>I'm partial to the idea of damaging physical stats, with death coming when a characters stats are reduced to 0. This avoids the whole "I have 1 hitpoint left, lets rock!" situation as characters become weaker as they take damage.

Oh. /dnd/tard.

Play something else, like GURPS and it's stun mechanics and fainting and everything else.

>>49354397
>Oh. /dnd/tard.
>Play GURPS
Is this just a meme now?
I'm a different anon btw
And I'm not even dnd's biggest fan

>>49354136
Personally I prefer a hybrid system where you have some HP that you can lose, but after that's gone (or after X% of it is gone) you start losing performance per hit (or maybe per hit over X damage).

You'd die or whatever (depending on what kind of game it was you might simply get knocked out or something) after taking a ton of damage or a bunch of the performance penalty injuries, whichever happened first, and magical healing would be much better at dealing with HP damage than those.

Basically, I want a death from a thousand cuts to still be a possibility, and I want people to not take performance penalties for the first half-ish of a fight, but after that they should start getting tired and slowing down.

>>49354397
Actually, my partiality towards stat damage is derived from a homebrew system I've (slowly) been working on. My roommates have agreed to test it when it hits a playable state.

But I'm at the point now where I have to finalize the games basic concepts before continuing, hence my curiosity in the subject of character damage.

I'm gonna go to bed, gotta work early. If there's interest in knowing more I could share some stuff some time tomorrow, otherwise lets keep talking damage and health.

Legends of the Wulin has a fantastic alternative damage system.

All successful attacks inflict Ripples. Ripples don't do anything by themselves, but are an abstract representation of the toll of combat, attrition and exhaustion building up and making things more and more risky.

Particularly successful attacks inflict Rippling Rolls, where Ripples are converted into Conditions that represent actual injuries capable of impeding actions and eventually defeating your opponent.

What makes it really interesting is how it interacts with people who focus on different combat stats. Someone with high accuracy can inflict a lot of Ripples while someone with high direct defences can keep them low, but someone with high Damage (which is added to ripplings rolls) can cripple an opponent with a single lucky hit, while someone with high Toughness (used to resist Rippling Rolls) can keep fighting at full effectiveness through no-selling rippling rolls.

I'm very surprised to see other people liking the idea of becoming weaker as you get more hurt. I thought I was in the tiny minority.

The system I'm designing uses pain and damage to affect character abilities proportionately, but has other metrics for serious or fatal injuries.

The "Death Spiral" effect is extremely cool to me. You become paranoid about not getting hurt, and that means mitigating and avoiding danger realistically. Just don't make recovery too crazy.

I have a weird rigid version of Exalted 3rd damage system that functions much more simply than it does in Ex3rd.

Basically, your health bar cycles, and with each cycle you take either status effects or wounds, up to the attacker.

At base you do one damage, but the better you attack the more damage you do. When damage hits 3, you either choose a status effect (Trip, Disarm etc) or choose to wound the opponent.

If you choose status effect, that comes to effect immediately, and many of them actually help you cause more wounds, doubling social damage for instance.

If you cause wounds, after calculating the wounds, your opponent rolls their Toughness againt the amount of wounds, and if they roll same or under, they're out.

'Out' in this context does not mean dead or even incapacitated. It just means that the player MUST exit combat soon. However that's done (fainting, lying down, even dying) is up to the player, but the only rule is that longer the player takes in exiting, the harsher the consequences are. Like, if you are stabbed to a vital organ, you can keep fighting, but you might just die from it.

>>49353985
I was thinking about a system where damage was almost always incredibly extreme. You'd roll some amount of dice (usually one), and a 6 would kill, a 3-5 would maim (which usually ensured death), and a 1-2 would stagger (which also basically meant you'd die).

They were all dangerous outcomes because combat was done by figuring out the members' relative "tempo", and giving the turn to the greatest tempo. This meant that there was back and forth, each combatant maybe surviving a stagger, but once something was landed a second time, the extra 1-2 attacks with no sure defense would just end it.

I like wound systems like Burning Wheel has. Character has wound thresholds, damage exceeds that and you get a wound. Every wound gives penalties to rolls and are cumulative. They take time to heal from a couple days to months. Simple to use, effective in making the players avoid starting combat as the default option, and as a bonus makes the combat actually less deadly.

>>49353985
I prefer wounds.

>>49354429
ayrt

The 1 HP thing is admittedly in a lot of systems, but dnd is a big offender.

Meanwhile GURPS is the only one off the top of my head that does shock, skill, and stat damage.

Thus, complaints about:

>"I have 1 hitpoint left, lets rock!" situation

Strongly indicate that they don't know GURPS

>>49354440

Hmm, in my homebrew which I described there's functionality damage. I only really started nibbling at the item end of it, rather than the character end, mind.

Dull knives do less damage, dented armor doesn't protect as well. Etc. I was very into making sure things were fractal and reflected each other instead of going out of context.

I'd also be interested in...An adrenalin system? Roll to ignore some stat damage (Strength mostly, Int would keep on going down) Every time you're hit you roll. If you ever fail a roll all the stat damage hits you at once. If you're not attacked for, eh, 3 consecutive turns your Adrenillian stat starts goes down until you can't make your roll any more.

Crits give you a burst of strength.

>>49354431

I can understand that level of health being fun. The 40k role play did that.

Why is the "character" is able to make attacks at 1 HP an issue?

The person piloting the character is going to be cowardly anyway.

>>49355136
The mechanics should reinforce the internal logic of the world.

>>49354196

Sounds like the Star Wars FFG system

>>49355081

>Meanwhile GURPS is the only one off the top of my head that does shock, skill, and stat damage.

Burning Wheel is one that comes to mind as also having wounds with penalties.

Speaking of Burning Wheel, my answer for the thread would be the systems based on it: Mouse Guard and Torchbearer. Instead of individual HP, each side in a conflict (whether it's physical combat, social conflict, or stranger things like chase sequences or banishing spirits) has a pool of disposition points that are split up between the different characters on that side. The different actions reduce the enemy's disposition or strength your own in different ways. When one side is reduced to 0, they lose according to the stakes of the conflict. But the really interesting thing is that if the winning side lost any of their disposition (and they almost certainly will have), they have to make a compromise with the losing side. More lost disposition means a larger compromise.

Obviously it wouldn't work for every game, but it gives some fun results.

>>49355157

But why?

You are spending writer, GM, and player resources to do that.

This is why I am not a fan of mid fight stat allocation, and appreciate that 4e had curse and disease check happen after the encounter were you get them.

>>49355250
>I've taken 4 points of damage, I roll at -2 now
Is that really hard? It's basic math for pretty much any game that does things like that

>>49355367

And how much life do I have left?

And this makes the sudden turnsout mechanics cost more GM and player time.

Or does it make sense that only monsterous creatures can become more enraged and aggressive with their attack once damaged enough, and everything else gets weaker.

>>49355415
>And how much life do I have left?
4 less than before.
>And this makes the sudden turnsout mechanics cost more GM and player time.
Yeah sure, like 2 seconds when your hit, these games tend to be more deadly more often, after all they're trying to be realistic with damage. It's not for everyone or every game sure, but it offers a lot like "Wow, all of a sudden attacking multiple people instead of wailing on one guy until he's dead is a viable tactic"

>Or does it make sense that only monsterous creatures can become more enraged and aggressive with their attack once damaged enough, and everything else gets weaker
Who said anything about big monsters getting stronger?

>>49355437

Doesn't that just mean that HP doesn't really matter if you have dealt enough damage to make it impossible for an opponent to hit you.

Seems like you have just made everyone have a defined lower hp range to be good.

Also, genre convention, and you didn't actually answer my first question.

Giving smartass not answers doesn't get us anywhere.

>>49354397
Since when has DnD used stat damage as the primary damage type?
The only thing I can think of that does is Traveller, at least classic

>>49355474
>Doesn't that just mean that HP doesn't really matter if you have dealt enough damage to make it impossible for an opponent to hit you
Not always, let's take SR for instance, because that's the example I'm more or less using.

You have 10 HP. For every 2 damage you take minus -1 to your rolls. So the most you'll ever have is -4, which means you can still probably hit, but you'll have a much harder time. So your still a threat, but now your less of a threat. It creates a new interplay.

>Seems like you have just made everyone have a defined lower hp range to be good.
No, it's just that these games tend to trade of high HP like DnD where you have hundreds for instead 10-20. Not all of them I'm sure, but a lot, the whole point of these systems is to be realistic.

>you didn't actually answer my first question.
Yes I did, if you take 4 damage, and you at 12, you are now at 8.

>Giving smartass not answers doesn't get us anywhere.
What did I say was smartass? Why do you feel the need to get so defense. I'm trying to explain something after you asked, that's all I'm doing.

>>49355157
The internal logic of D&D is that HP is explicitly an abstract combination of multiple different factors and not just "meat points". You can work out the in-game description of a successful attack roll however you want, but the mechanical outcome is that you're still perfectly healthy (albeit slightly closer to death).

Instead of just changing HP Im changing how combat are played out, mechanically speaking. HP was the means to determine 'health level' and therefore when someone is beat - that is, the fight is over.

>Edge
Sliding scale to indicate who is winning. Reaching either end means that side won the fight. Kill-move or surrender, just knockout even, whatever, the fight ended. Mechanically this is the direct replacement for dealing damage.
>Wounds
Beyond tracking who is winning the fight, we gotta track the consequences, particularly wounds. This along with 'losing Edge' is the replacement for taking damage.
>Escalation
Well, because Edge have no inherent way of pushing for the fight to end, we implement Escalation which mechanically functions by adding an increasing number to swings to Edge.

It's still untested but how does it sound so far?

>>49355650
Maybe do something like Torchbearer, wherein the side to lose all its disposition tokens loses.
The winner gets whatever they wanted at the outset of the conflict (drive off the adventurers, convince the mayor, slay the hobgoblins), but depending on how much disposition the winner lost (how well the loser did bascially), the loser can inflict compromises on the victor (the goblins drive off the adventurers but take many casualties in the process, the mayor is convinced but only for now, the party slays the bugbears, but some of there rations fall into the fire during the fight)

Bloody Finger Points.(BFP)

Basically when your character gets hit you have to finger fuck your asshole for x seconds equal to the damage you took. If those fingers come out bloody your character is dead.

File: Black Sword Guy.jpg (25KB, 262x246px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 262x246px

>>49355474
>Monsters should get stronger and gain new abilities when they're half-dead
>because of genre convention
You know pretty much only 4e and video games does that, right? Hell, at least give them a >muh final form if you're gonna do that to give some semblance of reason.

>>49355250
Any "resources" needed to track the most important statistic in the entire game is an investment. In my system this requires very little effort and is still accurate. D&D has an awful system from top to bottom, and their system is too stuck in the past to really improve fundamentally now.

>>49355560
That's a lot of words to say nothing. In every sense of the word, "internal logic" demands actual explanation, not "abstract shit that doesn't make sense". There is no internal logic at all. You can say that's fine, but you don't get to redefine what internal logic means to pretend it has an explanation.

No matter which way you slice it, if your character is almost dead, they shouldn't be fully healthy in their capabilities. D&D's system is built around giving up on solving this problem.

>>49356244

>No matter which way you slice it, if your character is almost dead, they shouldn't be fully healthy in their capabilities.

This assertion is entirely founded upon the notion of 'realism'. Realism is not something every system finds equal value in and needs to address in the same way. If a system has a different set of priorities, it makes perfect sense for your assertion not to apply, or even for the opposite to be true- see Tenra Bansho Zero for a great example. Taking Wounds gives your character bonus dice, trading consequences later for a bonus to combat now, with the Dead Box as the ultimate expression of this. If your Dead Box is clear, nothing in a fight can kill you- They can knock you out and you can lose, but you'll survive it somehow. However, if you tick your dead box, you get a significant boost to all rolls- Putting your characters life on the line for the chance of victory.

Is it realistic? Fuck no. Is it way more appropriate for the themes and style of the game than a death spiral? Absolutely.

>>49353985
Is it time to talk Nechronica? It sounds like it's time to talk Nechronica. In this system, you have four different hit locations: the head, the arms, the torso, and the legs. When you take damage, it will hit one of these locations, and then you have to break a number of parts equal to the damage dealt. Now what's important here is that a part is not merely "one HP". Every part has some mechanical ability tied to it. Your head? That's probably got most of your action points, if it runs out of parts you'll be feeling sluggish way at the bottom of the AP track. Arms? Holds most of your weapons, if they're kaput you're probably low on things to whack with. Torso holds a lot of sundry shit with defensive abilities, and you'll generally be a lot easier to properly damage when the part count hits zero. Legs of course hold a lot of movement parts, so you'll be sitting pretty still when they all break.

It's a really visceral system where you can feel the damage you're taking because of the maneuvers you lose, even if it's only the basic parts everyone starts with. Because if those are gone, your important reinforcement parts are exposed and might be soon to follow.

>>49356264
>Taking Wounds gives your character bonus dice
Damn, that's pretty gar

>>49356264
>>49356280
TBZ also has HP, but it's a count to unconsciousness, not death. Wounds are speed bumps in that, taking damage that could go into HP. (though filling critical wound boxes turns the HP count into a countdown, ticking off HP per turn)

>>49356264
Okay, so either internal logic isn't important to those games, in which case they are stupid, or they establish some explanation that accounts for the backwards mechanics.

My problem is not with unrealistic systems, but with bad explanations. D&D has no good explanation whatsoever; no internal logic. Does this other game you're talking about try to explain why you become more powerful and have control over your ability to die? If not, it's a stupid system that I don't respect.

>>49356652

Again, you're assuming internal logic is only acceptable if it is a tangible, physical thing.

It's a question of priorities and what the system cares about. And some systems care about rule of cool and tending to genre conventions or narrative cliche's more than they care about realism or the laws of physics.

It doesn't make them inconsistent or mean they lack internal logic, it just achieves it in a different way. If that's not to your preferences it's perfectly fine, but it's no less valid a basis for a system.

>>49356672
Metaphysics are good enough for me. D&D doesn't even bother with that. "Rule of cool" and tropes AREN'T internal logic, it's a proud declaration that they DON'T CARE ABOUT LOGIC. They are illogical systems with other priorities, as you said. So please, get it through your head: I care about internal logic and I don't respect systems without it.

If you think illogical systems that prioritize "rule of cool" is better, then I guess we disagree, huh? These systems no doubt work on their own terms and are therefore "valid", but I will still say they're stupid compared to a game with good internal logic.

(Stupid can also be fun, as with many non-RPG tabletop games where you might move around a shoe or a top hat as your avatar and collect money for passing "Go!" However, I don't respect that in an RPG.)

>>49356742
>So please, get it through your head: I care about internal logic and I don't respect systems without it
But he's saying it's not the only thing and people like other things too, just get over yourself

>>49356752
I don't subscribe to the philosophy that just because other people have other opinions, I need to put disclaimers around mine. I say they are stupid, and you can deduce that it's my opinion or assertion without being a sensitive baby about it.

>>49356742

>"Rule of cool" and tropes AREN'T internal logic, it's a proud declaration that they DON'T CARE ABOUT LOGIC.

Can you support this assertion? Because it seems completely arbitrary to me.

A system and setting defines its own internal logic, and metaphysics or technobabble is just window dressing. Every mecha setting has, as an implicit assumption of the setting, 'Mechs are functional and effective combat assets', and no amount of explaining will make that fundamental assertion any more realistic or less 'illogical' by real world terms. But that doesn't matter. If a setting states something to be the case, that is so, and is a part of the worlds internal logic. It's also possible to fuck up, if a system ends up with contradictory statements to that effect and a setting that doesn't make sense, but rule of cool and genre conventions can be parts of a settings internal logic.

'Heroes keep fighting at full strength until they go down', as an assumed and implicit part of a setting, is logical. It's the way things work in that world, so why wouldn't it be? If you end up criticizing the premise of the setting itself, you're just missing the point.

>>49354239
Vitaity and wound points. Also used for star wars d20 as their base system, there's an unearthed arcana article for them in 5e

File: aint easy.jpg (22KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 640x480px

>>49356779
Yeah, but have you ever thought that no one cares what you think? All you're doing is bitching about wrongfun.
You're the one acting like a baby. If you don't like it fine, he said you don't have to, no one cares, but "REEEE everything I don't like sucks" makes you sound retarded and childish.

File: 1466392781762.jpg (66KB, 564x710px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 564x710px

>>49353985
I'm a fan of ripples myself.

>>49356802
Man maddox's videos suck shit in comparison to his written stuff

File: 1410247600931.jpg (1MB, 1600x1600px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1600x1600px

>>49356829

My Xia. Heavenly Immortal tier taste.

>>49356790
Well, logically, "rule of cool" does not make any sense for WHY something unrealistic would work a certain way in a fictional setting. So... yep, assertion supported. If the answer to "Why" is just "it's cool" or "It's fun" or "that's how shit works in this world", those are all the opposite of internal logic. They are dismissals of logic.

>'Heroes keep fighting at full strength until they go down', as an assumed and implicit part of a setting, is logical. It's the way things work in that world, so why wouldn't it be? If you end up criticizing the premise of the setting itself, you're just missing the point.

Oh I get it: you're retarded. You literally think that "circular logic" is the same as "internal logic". Your argument is hereby dead and buried. May it rest in peace.

>>49356803
Yeah, but have you ever thought that no one cares what you think?

Not really. You can say nobody cares, but they are bothering to respond and take offense, so they're showing evidence of caring. In truth, I also care what others think, which is why I came here to discuss things and back up my arguments instead of leaving the thread.

>All you're doing is bitching about wrongfun.
I explicitly said that stupid and illogical systems can be fun. I also made it clear that I don't personally respect them in RPG's. Do I need to add the disclaimers so you will stop crying?

>You're the one acting like a baby. If you don't like it fine, he said you don't have to, no one cares,
I also said he doesn't have to agree with my opinion, so that proves nothing. And again, I think some people do care enough to debate it, so you're deflecting.

> but "REEEE everything I don't like sucks" makes you sound retarded and childish.
Let's go back to where the argument started. I answered somebody's question (I assume his) about why D&D's HP system sucks in people's opinions. Already, it should be clear that I was giving MY OWN PERSONAL opinion and he didn't need to shit his pants about it.

>>49356889

The only circular logic here is yours

>Well, logically, "rule of cool" does not make any sense for WHY something unrealistic would work a certain way in a fictional setting.

This goes both ways.

>In a fictional setting, 'realism' does not make any sense for WHY something realistic would work a certain way in a fictional setting.

You're insisting that you can enforce your own personal assumptions on any setting as an absolute standard of 'logic', flat out disregarding that anything else could be a reasonable basis for it.

File: 1464125248135.jpg (55KB, 303x311px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 303x311px

>You can say nobody cares, but they are bothering to respond and take offense, so they're showing evidence of caring
No what I care about is the fact degradation of the board by people like you, who actively go out there way to be as combative as possible because they think it's a sign of wit. I don't care what you like, I care about how you pollute a simple discussion for no reason than to be a bitch.


> I don't personally respect them in RPG'
>hey can be fun, but if you play them in a certain way, you've lost the respect of I, the turboretard

>I also said he doesn't have to agree with my opinion, so that proves nothing. And again
But you have this odd desire to let everyone know how beneath it these games are to you

Let me make this crystal clear.
No one's decrying your opinion, they're decrying you acting like an autist.
You're whining into the night because someone has different, and probably more varied tastes than you, so you'll pretend you have some intellectual high-ground because you prefer something better than "Stupid fun" because every game where you don't have to clean out your bullet wounds with peroxide, then go through physical therapy for months to walk again is too plebeian for your amazing taste.

But your games don't make you do that do they? Because at a certain point even you, the king of "internal logic" realizes that a certain amount of logic and realism would force the game to a grinding halt. Hell, you're probably the kind of player who wants realism, but the moment is poorly thought logic backfires in game, you throw a hissy fit thinking just because what little bit of brain you have thought something up means it's not retarded.

You'll go on and bitch, but every time someone points out that all you're doing is being a pest you'll go "Hey, that's just my opinion tho, so like you can't criticize me being a retard"

You're pretentious, but you're also not actually that smart or interesting, you're the worst form of pretentious.

>>49356915
>You're insisting that you can enforce your own personal assumptions on any setting as an absolute standard of 'logic', flat out disregarding that anything else could be a reasonable basis for it.
Oh wow, you're actually EXTRA retarded: you think that fictional settings can have SECRET HIDDEN explanations that account for unrealism, as if they are magical realms that behave by cryptic rules hidden from our eyes!

As somebody who actually writes and creates fiction myself, I know that a lack of explanation -- or worse yet, some dismissal like "Rule of Cool" -- means the creators are either lazy or stupid. Therefore I don't respect fictional settings where there is no STATED AND EXPLICIT logic for how things work. Does that get through your thick skull?

D&D does not have any logic besides what the authors explicitly state in their official materials. I'm not "enforcing my own assumptions of standards of personal absolutes" or whatever jibberish you're spouting, I'm looking at the actual material provided and finding it lacking.

-They have an unrealistic system,
- Instead of creating internal logic to explain it, they neglect or imply that it's not unimportant
-This in turn means they don't think their fictional setting is important enough to explain
-It also means the internal logic of their whole system is lazy

You might find it easy to overlook these things, but I don't. So I say they're stupid, because I shouldn't have to spell it all out for dummies like yourself who get your feelings hurt when I have other priorities than you.

>pollute a simple discussion
Go back and look at where this started. I was 100% courteous and simply said that a game's mechanics should enforce a world's internal logic. Is that "polluting" to you? Turns out this other faggot couldn't leave it alone and has been trying to put me on the defensive ever since. You're going totally off topic and shitting up this thread with irrelevant referee wanking

>>49357029

At no point have you actually given any evidence as to why what You consider a reasonable basis is any more valid than anything else. You're just standing by your personal assertion and acting as if it is obvious, objective truth.

>>49356947
>hey can be fun, but if you play them in a certain way, you've lost the respect of I, the turboretard
Not an argument. Just your own sensitivity.

>But you have this odd desire to let everyone know how beneath it these games are to you
Nigger, we're on /tg/ discussing the pros and cons of fucking Hit Points. Can you be more fucking retarded by making it sound "odd" that I'd argue my view on exactly that subject? kys

I tried reading the rest of your pointless ad hominem diatribe, but you just projected so hard it might have caused me to go blind.

>>49357029
Oh man, you think game systems are meant to simulate instead of be abstractions that facilitate game play.

HP and so much more of D&D isn't a simulation of how the world works, but abstractions of how the world works. HP is a combination of multiple things, from fatigue, to luck, to physical wounds.

Runequest 6.
7 hit locations: head, limbs, chest and abdomen. All have their own hp based on your size and constitution, typically ranging from 4 to 8 hp.
Three types of wounds: minor, serious and major wounds.
Minor wounds are when hit location has taken some damage, but it's not at 0 hp or below. No penalties yet.
Serious wounds are when hp is 0 or below. Typically it's an endurance check to see if your hit location is usable - serious wound in head, chest or abdomen renders you incapacitated. If end. check is passed, you get -20 to your skill rolls until healed.
Major wounds occur at the negative equal of hit location hp, and mean that the location is utterly devastated - chopped off, for example. Endurance check to see if you don't die outright, on a pass you are just bleeding to death in a matter of seconds (typically in 3 rounds' time).

For reference: A typical longsword does 1d8 damage and the average hp in hands are 4, so without armour it's very possible to kill an opponent with a single blow. Armour is very important, as even a gambeson/leather gives 2 points of damage reduction.

In short: rq6 is potentially very lethal if players are stupid. However, in my current game, we have had tens of fights and not a single serious wound has been received, even though our GM has put us against all kinds of overwhelming odds.

>>49357056
So let me get this right: you're asking for evidence... of the validity... of my basis... for...? God damn son, I've already said it's my opinion. I've already said why it matters to me personally. I've given you the childish disclaimers you seem to think are necessary to provide before stating a belief. How autistic do you have to be to keep trickling out these half-formed sentences trying to undermine the very concept of a viewpoint? The last desperate attempts of a faggot.

Try this instead: "I understand where you're coming from and I disagree. Thanks for explaining your point of view."

>Oh man, you think game systems are meant to simulate instead of be abstractions that facilitate game play.
"Meant to"? No, I never said that. However, they have the potential to at least EXPLAIN their "abstractions" with internal logic, which IN MY OPINION makes them more compelling, intuitive, interesting, and fleshed out.

Can you get off my dick now and crawl back into your haystack? Abstractions are necessary. Internal logic is a luxury. I want that luxury.

>>49357063
>Not an argument
Literally /pol/
Not surprising.
>Just your own sensitivity.
Nah, I actually like more simulistic games, and I can express this without throwing a bitchfit.

>we're on /tg/ discussing the pros and cons of fucking Hit Points. Can you be more fucking retarded by making it sound "odd" that I'd argue my view on exactly that subject?
Except your not, all you're doing is saying how you like something so therefore it must be good, you've added in no real arguments.
You said it's good because it has logic, the other guy said that wasn't really a raison d'etre for everyone, and all you could do is double down without adding any new reasons, aside that you like logic.

>I tried reading the rest of your pointless ad hominem diatribe
Didn't you call me retarded? I guess I shouldn't expect more from you.

Here's the TLDR, you're neither smart nor clever, you're games aren't as realistic as you think, all you do is whine and masquerade it as your opinion to deflect that your just whining.

>>49357162

I'm asking for evidence based on your claims of what is or is not acceptable when it comes to internal logic. Unless you're backpedaling on that because you don't actually have a point?

>>49357162
Dude, Im not even sure of what you even mean by "internal logic of the abstractions". You're going to need to provide an example of this that isn't just a simulationist type system.

>>49357173

See

>>49357162

>they have the potential to at least EXPLAIN their "abstractions" with internal logic, which IN MY OPINION makes them more compelling, intuitive, interesting, and fleshed out.

How about that, retard? I've now given four pieces of criteria for how internal logic explanations for unrealistic shit helps ME AND PEOPLE LIKE ME enjoy a game system more:

- Compelling
- Intuitive
- Interesting
- Fleshed out

Do I REALLY need to fucking explain why internal logic improves those pieces of criteria for me? Are you that stupid, or can you comprehend where i'm coming from by now?

>I'm asking for evidence based on your claims of what is or is not acceptable when it comes to internal logic.
So you want examples? Well, D&D does an excellent job establishing internal logic for different magic systems by including tons of material related to gods, planes of reality, etc. The fact that this internal logic ties into and reinforces the mechanics of why some magic works one way and others work a different way helps me understand and appreciate the whole system more. Is that the kind of "evidence" you're looking for? Because this is all going to boil down to what I enjoy, in case you're still scratching your soft little head about my "basis".

To contrast D&D's great magic internal logic, Hit Points that allow you to function perfectly fine when near death are stupid and have no internal logic.

>>49357245

>To contrast D&D's great magic internal logic, Hit Points that allow you to function perfectly fine when near death are stupid and have no internal logic.

...But they do though. It's right there in the DMG, of literally every edition. Hit Points are an abstraction of minor injuries, luck, stamina and your general ability to avoid serious injury. Any actual injury is represented by zero or negative hit points- At which point you are severely penalized if not completely unable to take actions.

How is this any less logical and consistent than fucking magic?

>>49357245
>- Compelling
>- Intuitive
>- Interesting
>- Fleshed out
>I like it because of these vague reasons and that's why I like it, and me saying I like it for these vague reasons I'm contributing
You really aren't very bright. Maybe come up with good reasons why you like something, learn to express those reasons, and act in a calm and rational manner and people won't point out you're an obnoxious whiny brat. All you've done is reinforced the fact that all you can do is whine, and when pressed for reasons you have none. All you're saying is you like it because you like it.
But I guess it's fine, after all it is "Just your onion"

Mutants and Masterminds has a good system. You roll a save to see how badly each hit injures you, based on how powerful the attack was. Fail by a little, and you're injured and take other hits more easily. Fail by more, and you're also stunned and lose the next turn. Fail by a lot, and you're disabled and can only take half actions. Fail one of those again, or fail by a ton, and you're out.

>This whole fucking rant

Angry guy, for someone bitching a lot about consistency and logic you are wildly inconsistent and illogical.

>>49357273
Yea, his argument about magic is also kind of dumb. The magic is simply asserted as different, and that's the extent to which its explained within the system. Gods give spells, and they are divine. That's literally the full explanation. Same with arcane and psionics and all the other magic varieties.

The settings usually explain it more, by giving background and fleshed out explanations for the origins and its use.

>>49356127
I used the concept with an orc barbarian i had the group fight. They were fumbling all over the place, so the orc was pretty much making fun of them, so when they started doing good and not missing constantly, i had him use his rage skill.

Then the dwarf crit.

>>49356127
Haven't you ever heard one of the many metaphors about a cornered animal?

>>49357273
I happen to have the 5th edition DMG right in front of me on my lap. Care to point out where that explanation is? I looked at the "Combat" section and it doesn't say anything about why Hit Points work the way they do. Doesn't look like there's any section regarding it either. I think you're lying out of your ass because you're wrong, but I'll let you prove otherwise.

>minor injuries, luck, stamina and your general ability to avoid serious injury
That's a funny lie, even if that is what the DMG stated. Tons of described attacks in the Monster Manual and elsewhere specifically describe the ferocious nature of attacks impacting your character. Being burned by dragon's breath? Being knocked back or prone by huge ogre smashes? That's an abstraction of minor injuries and stamina? Those shouldn't affect your character's performance in any way? You're saying that "zero hp = actually injured", right? So really, each hero can only take one real injury before they're down? Literally not one DM has ever described combat that way in the history of D&D, so either the system does a shit job at explaining everything, or you're trying to invent logic where none exists.

>The magic is simply asserted as different,
>Gods give spells, and they are divine. That's literally the full explanation
Yep, but guess what? Unless you're retarded, you would know that each of those "gods" has their own mythology and therefore their own explanation. Being "divine" is internal logic. It's may not be REAL LIFE logic, but it's a logic that is asserted, treated consistently by the system, and if accepted, explains things. I really didn't think you people would be so clueless about what internal logic actually means. Psychic powers and drawing power from other planes of existence are also understood to be things that have their own logic, whether established in the material or in culture at large. I'm not saying you don't need to explain why people need to breathe oxygen in D&D

>>49353985
Fighting spirit/wound points

Works just like HP, but wound points are a second layer of them. When you take wound points, you gain a pile of disadvantages which make it harder for you to attack (but not harder for you to defend). they're a big buzzer saying "Alert, alert, retreat."

Without healing, you heal one wound per 8 hour rest

Magic can also only heal wound points OR fighting spirit, not both. First aid can only heal fighting spirit, though longer term care can deal with wounds.

>>49357437
Just curious: is the reason you like the simplicity of the "wound gauge" the fact that it spares you from tracking many different things using pencil and paper?

>>49356889
In a game series where people flying and throwing fireballs and lightning from their hands is the norm, rule of cool beats logic. Its like arguing why shit happens in an anime. Because it does, now cool your shit and just play.

>>49357435
I generally describe the first half of your HP as being bruises and exhaustion, the next quarter as minor injuries, and the last quarter as increasingly serious injuries up to the one which downs you. If you're competent, it's easy to fit monster status effects into that kind of model.

>>49357437
Oh hey, someone else who reads the Angry DM. How well has that one been working out for you?

>>49357495
I'm pretty sure this is even how 4e codified it, that's why there was the bloodied system, well that and rules based off of it.

>>49357432
Well I guess that is true, it would be kinda interesting for a system to have that, like a pressure system where you're less accurate but you can fuck someone up because you're so pumped on adrenaline.

>>49357273
>It's right there in the DMG, of literally every edition
So heroes never get severly wounded early in a fight and then battle on, winning in spite of the odds? Yeah, D&D HPs remain a shitty game mechanic and the rationales for them is on the level of "my dog ate my homework".

>>49357481
Me as the GM? Yeah. If I assume that any wound is mechanically the same, even though the fighter & wizard have mechanically identical wounds, they play out differently. I just give them the one "wounded" token.

It hasn't come up yet, but I think that if I crit someone down to wounds (and not straight to unconsciousness) I'm going to have them lose a limb (because I'm playing a pirate game)

Not sure if I said this in my first post, but if you gain even one point of fighting spirit, you lose the disadvantage. So PCs potion drinking usually goes straight to fighting spirit.

>>49357507
I really enjoy it. Works exactly as intended

>>49357495
yeah and you have to do that because D&D's HPs do not seperate meatpoints from luck. because with pure meatpoints everyone has a fair assessment how much actual damage was done.

furthermore, it allowes to differntiate mechanically (always a good thing) tough characters without special fortune from squishy characters who just have tons of luck in avoiding damage.

>>49357435
>dragon's breath?
You got singed
>You barely dodged knowing the breath out of you

It's pretty easy to handwave, which is fine because DnD isn't meant to be realistic, because not every game is meant to, because sometimes it's nice to play high realism high danger Shadowrun, and sometimes a nice game of DnD is fun to play.
It's like complaining about realism in a superman movie, you're kinda missing the point.

>>49356889

>"that's how shit works in this world", those are all the opposite of internal logic.

Wouldn't that BE internal logic, if that's how it works in that universe?

>>49357588

That seems like the intended point. But of course he just contradicts it without doing anything to back up his argument.

>>49357526
>D&D HPs remain a shitty game mechanic
And you're reason for that is why? That it doesn't model real world damage?
>rationales for them is on the level of "my dog ate my homework".
Are you feeling okay anon, you're stating to sound less and less coherent.

>>49357435
HP is variously describe in every edition, I don't know about 5e since I don't play it, and it's always described as some combination of fatigue, luck, health, and simple ability to take a hit.

PF has dropped most of that for simply going with robustness and health, making it essentially meat points, which i'm perfectly fine with.

This is the same level of explanation as the divine magic is spells given by gods. That you can't see this is rather amazing. It actually paints you as someone expecting something more simulationist, and thus realistic, with its shitty death spiral suckitude and not looking at it without that bias.

Do you know how many people disregard real lifes utterly shitty death spiral shit? All kinds of people, from many authors of fantasy, scifi and other genres, to game devs of many types of video games and ttrpgs. Its not fun, it doesn't make games better, and all it does it make it such that any fight you do get in likely to result in death. Death is not fun.

>>49356790
>'Heroes keep fighting at full strength until they go down', as an assumed and implicit part of a setting, is logical
it could be considered as such. however, I have to point out that it's a shitty, retarded logic, inspired by brand loyalty to a system that has out-of-date mechanics at its core.

>>49357619

>Implying I give a flying fuck about D&D

See the above point in the same post about mecha settings. It's no different.

>>49357485
>anime
Ah... that explains the awful taste in stupid things.

>>49357495
Do you actually enforce those status effects? If so, you're not playing by the D&D rules. I respect how you modify them to create some internal logic, but it only shows how lame their system is by contrast.

>>49357510
I remember "bloodied", I thought it would start moving D&D in the right direction. Turns out no.

>>49357526
Finally somebody else intelligent.

>>49357573
>You got singed
So when I lose 35 HP... I got singed? And this 35 HP I lost represents the kind of pain that brings me closer to death, but doesn't affect my performance in any way?

>You barely dodged knocking the breath out of you
Again, the number makes this stupid. If it's just handwaved and minor, I shouldn't lose HP at all. If it actually knocked my breath out, I should suffer a consequence in my performance. I can recover from losing my breath, so why are my HP still kept low until I'm healed by fucking magic?

See how it all falls apart without internal logic?

>Wouldn't that BE internal logic, if that's how it works in that universe?
"It works that way because it works that way" is CIRCULAR logic, not internal logic. Internal logic is saying that the One Ring was forged by Sauron, has X powers, and can only be destroyed by Y. Those things need to be SAID and they need to be CONSISTENT for it to be internal logic. "The One Ring just works that way because it works that way," is retarded and the opposite of logic.

>>49357610

See above and also this guy:

>>49357619

>>49357558
That's where the "bruises and exhaustion" comes into play. If you're a tough heavily armored character you block the hit, if you're a light and fast character you barely dodge.

>>49357631
>Still arguing about logic in a game setting predominantly filled with literally impossible things

What a fucking retard.

>>49356264
>Realism is not something every system finds equal value in and needs to address in the same way.
it is time to raise the question if a lot of fantasy gamers actually think D&D's handling of HPs is good or if they only accept it coming from D&D because it is D&D, the de facto standard.

>>49357631
>See how it all falls apart without internal logic?
I actually don't think you even know what that word means do you?
It is internal logic. In DnD dragon fire at a certain point of an adventures life doesn't kill them. When people in DnD aren't killed they are at full fighting strength. This is pretty simple.

>>49357676

HP is fine. It does the job, but it's not particularly interesting. Unfortunately people talking about better systems has been drowned out by the loud blithering idiot sperging all over the board.

>>49357610
>HP is variously describe in every edition
Really, only 3.x broke this trend by not flat out saying, like every other edition, that hitpoints is what you said it was, leading to the misunderstanding oh HP by most people on this board (who were weaned on the 3.x teat).

>>49357676
It's good at what it is, DnD is a simple game with simple rules for the most part. It's probably the best game for beer and pretzels and can work for more serious tones if you like, as long as you don't care about deep simulationist game mechanics. The HP mechanics reflect this.

>>49357631
Oh, I don't have status effects for getting wounded. You're running on adrenaline during the fight, so you don't slow down from taking HP injuries. But if, for example, you fail a save against poison from a monster that bites you at more than half HP, then it nicked you just a little. On the other hand, if you make the save but are at less than a quarter HP, either you're tough enough that the poison isn't slowing you down, it didn't inject the poison, or it missed with the poison-injecting fangs and just got its mouth around you.

>>49357604
>That it doesn't model real world damage?
It not only doesn't model real world damage, it doesn't even model fictional damage well.

>>49357604
Since this was one of my first posts in this thread and you're clearly hallucinating, confusing me with >>49357435 or >>49357245, I think you might be "dehydrated. Go drink some water.

Why the fuck do have deendee fags always have to assume that it's always just one detractor? Are they that insecure or do they need to resort to propaganda?

>>49357709
This.
D&D is not a realistic game and many numbers are boiled down representations of situations.
They are not supposed to represent real life injury, and do not try.
However, this is also why in 2e and earlier, traps, poison and such were Save v Death, because your luck and skill didn't prevent the blow, now your body must try to fight it off.

>>49357740

>deendee fags
I'm not tho, I actually don't like to play it unless forced by my group. I assumed you were the other person because you act like an idiot in the same manner. I'm 75% you're the same guy come here again, saying the same crap, but pretending to be someone else because it's easier for you, but that might just be my cynicism.

>>49357669
>denying how shitty an old outdated and poorly explained system is because he loves sucking cocks
Ladies and gents.

>>49357690
>Maybe if I ignore the question of "why" I can pass it off for a logical explanation? Literally circular logic
t. Autist Extraordinaire

>>49357714
I guess this gets to the heart of why D&D's style of roleplaying is completely unsatsifying to me. Call me a "Simulationist" if you like, but there's very little fun, strategic, or immersive about rolling dice, looking at the results, factoring it into an arbitrary mechanics system, and then RETROACTIVELY BULLSHITTING SOME GAY LOGIC for why something happened. That's not roleplaying to me, it's just "Justifying Dice Rolls™" The Game

We could talk about that instead.

>>49357800
No, you just don't know what the word internal means. You keep using words you don't understand, even though people have tried very hard to explain to you why you are using them wrong.

>>49357800

Please, continue to be so aggressively stupid. Watching you make a fool out of yourself is making my fucking day.

Hey, I bet you have some really great opinions on why spells per day is great while fighters having AEDU abilities was the worst thing ever, right?

>>49357641
So tough characters never barely dodge and fast characters never dodge? What about characters that are both or neither? Why is that not distinct mechanically?

>>49357669
If anyone is a retard, then it is someone who has not understood that fantasy RPGs are, for the most part, meant (from a player's POV) to simulate the fictional realities of mythical medieval europe (King Arthur, Beowulf, Robin Hood, Nibelungensage, etc) or (probably more accurately) their modern adaptations. Enjoy your below 80 IQ.

>>49357693
I think it's not fine. I think it's never fine to mechanically mix two important properties (health, luck) in a single stat. I am in favor of having rather too many than too few stats, as their pure existence creates little administrative burden.

>>49357709
D&D? Simple? No edition of D&D can be considered a lightweight game, particularly not 3E. It's rather on the crunchy end of things.
What's more important: for the amount of crunch it entails, it does a very mediocre job of delivering cinematic combat. It's essentially a hack-and-slash system.

>>49357800
i never said anything about a specific system. Rather, all systems are guilty of it to one degree or another. No matter how much you want it to be otherwise, there is some degree of impossibility to these games, otherwise they wouldn't be ROLEPLAYING games. No one wants to roleplay office simulator. They want to roleplay high fantasy or super futuristic shit.


So how bout you quit being retarded and just admit that your point is fucking retarded.

>>49357800
>Call me a "Simulationist" if you like, but there's very little fun, strategic, or immersive about rolling dice, looking at the results, factoring it into an arbitrary mechanics system, and then RETROACTIVELY BULLSHITTING SOME GAY LOGIC for why something happened. That's not roleplaying to me, it's just "Justifying Dice Rolls™" The Game
Really? Because that's the heart of roleplaying games with conflict resolution mechanics. I want to do X, I roll for it, and I either succeed or fail. If I fail, then the GM explains what happened.

>>49357865
5e is pretty simple.
Plus I was mostly talking about combat, which is the biggest part of DnD. Let's compare it to say Dark Heresy, when you have to roll, roll to find which body part you hit, check weapon penetration against armor, roll damage, check damage against armor + toughness, apply damage.
While DnD has roll to hit, roll damaged, compare against any reductions, apply damage.

>>49357841
Tough characters can dodge and fast characters can block. Ultimately whether you block or dodge is of no consequence, because it's fluff on top of the underlying HP mechanic.

Characters who are both or neither tend to get wounded more or less, respectively, because tough and fast characters have more HP and better defenses, while characters who are neither have lower HP and worse defenses. So the fast and tough character will deflect a lot more hits, both the ones that come easy and the ones that take something out of them, while the fragile and slow character will crumple rapidly under an assault.

>>49357841
>simulate the fictional realities of mythical medieval europe (King Arthur, Beowulf, Robin Hood, Nibelungensage, etc)
Yet no complaints against an average normal human being being able to cast meteor swarm

>>49357873
what you're not getting is that game mechanics are supposed to reduce the shoe-horning, twisting and bending to a minimum. i could devise a d&d variant in which the average dagger does 8d6 damage and the sword does 1d4. it will however require a lot of weird explanations of what is happening in this game world.

mechanics are meant to define the physics of the game world as accurately as possible. our tenet is that d&d either
a) is widely inaccurate
b) is accurate but the choice of game physics is kinda retarded.

>>49357917

It's the magic/mundane double standard rearing its ugly head again. It pains me that people not only perpetuate that bullshit, they actually promote it as a good idea. It's so fucking dumb.

>>49357931
Yet when the melee scrubs get the chance to shine with a system that allows them to act superhuman due to adrenaline for a limited amount of time, you lose your shit.

>mechanics are meant to define the physics of the game world as accurately as possible. our tenet is that d&d either
[Citation Needed]

File: 1409380201033.jpg (59KB, 312x321px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 312x321px

>>49357931
>It's magic so it just works
>Well we don't know how magic would work so why not?
>The half-divine wizard Gandalf once lit an acorn on fire, so a wizard should be able to cast dimension door

>>49357945
That was his point

>>49357907
You're making DH way more complicated than it is. The actual differences are not nearly that significant.

>>49357913
Yeah and whether your tough character dodged due to his agility or blocked due to his toughness is Calvinball in D&D. It's a GM asspull.

If, otoh, you have solid game mechanics in place, I as a player know afterwards: "I evaded that attack because of my nimbleness" or "OMG, I am so tough, I didn't even notice the club hitting me - man, putting these points into Constitution during chargen really pays off".
You're robbing players of this distinction.

>>49357917
>Yet no complaints against an average normal human being being able to cast meteor swarm
Yeah, it's JRPG-style shit but not the issue in this thread.

>>49357928
You understand that's a massive strawman, right? D&D HP mechanics are an abstract way of saying "you can be injured a certain amount before you die." You can fluff that however you want, but ultimately it simulates what happens in real life. It's no different than someone failing a climbing check and saying "you grab for what you think is a handhold but it's not large enough for you to get a good grip," "you grab for the handhold but you don't quite make it," or "you grab for the handhold, but it's not sturdy enough and you pull it out of the wall. You almost slip, but manage to catch yourself just in time." There's no need for a separate resolution mechanic for each of those - you fail the roll but not by enough to fall, so you make no progress.

>>49357873
Exactly. Living with the risks and consequences of an imaginary world is the heart of roleplaying games. That's why a shitty (or completely absent) internal logic makes for shitty roleplaying.

Look at the faggot above who talked about almost being killed by a dragon's flames. "You got singed" he tells you. You didn't get hurt enough to affect anything you do, but you did get hit by the dragon's flames... kind of. Enough to almost kill you. "Singed", not injured. You lose 40 HP that you can't recover unless you get healed, even though you're fine and can do everything like you normally would.

It's the height of retardation. If you can call that "internal logic", it is the most broken, pathetic, and backwards logic I've ever seen.

A system that had clear, logical, consistent rules -- even if they need to invoke magic or some other INTERNAL system of LOGIC -- would go a long way to explaining WHY the dice rolls affect things the way they do.

>>49357947
>[Citation Needed]
feel free to disbelief at your own peril

>>49358003
I'm sorry you have an urgent need to know whether your character narrowly avoided injured due to toughness, agility, or luck. Most people can just accept that their character is a little worse for wear but not out of the fight, and don't have to have three separate rules for how.

>>49358003
But those are the steps you have to go through in DH. You can't skip any one of them without it being a houserule. Maybe you do it quicker irl, but those are the steps.
Here's Shadowrun
Roll to hit, Enemy rolls to dodge, compare how many more hits you got over them, calculate damage, compare against armor to see what kind of damage it is, roll body + armor against damage

>>49358018

That dragon fire example made perfect sense, and the fact you struggle so much with it is actually kinda weird.

Is your actual problem that you lack the flexibility and creativity to understand things which aren't utterly fucking blatant? I feel kinda sorry for you now.

>>49358015
>D&D HP mechanics are an abstract way of saying "you can be injured a certain amount before you die.
that would be true if HPs would be pure meatpoints. given that they are not, you're in error.

>You can fluff that however you want, but ultimately it simulates what happens in real life.
except that it leaves out the tiny, tiny issue of impact of injuries on performance

>There's no need for a separate resolution mechanic for each of those - you fail the roll but not by enough to fall, so you make no progress.
see >>49358003

>>49358021
But you're fucking wrong. It's a roleplaying game, not a simulation game.
To be a roleplaying game you have to play roles. You role play as it were.
Some games do this by having mechanics meant to be like the real world, some don't. DnD isn't less of a roleplaying game because it chose the path you like less

>>49358050
Literalness is one of the problems of legit autism. This argument about how HP lacks real world effects from injury and the resultant death spiral has very much made me think he is legit autistic and unable to reconcile systems that aren't meant to simulate real world effects.

>>49358050
I'm actually pretty sure he have some form of severe autism, not even saying this as an attack, I think that's why he has such an issue with all this

>>49358039
> Most people can just accept that their character is a little worse for wear but not out of the fight, and don't have to have three separate rules for how.
And I doubt that assertion. I posit to the contrary: gamers are used to this because the biggest brand in the industry promotes a legacy mechanic that does not make that distinction. I assert that gamers find it cool when their character who specializes in nimbleness explicitly evades injury because of it, if their tank character explicitly shrugs off attacks, etc.The same goes for luck, armor, etc.

>>49358018
It sounds like the real issue you have is with a lack of a death spiral mechanic in D&D. In that case, I think D&D just isn't for you. Personally, I've tried games with death spiral mechanics, and they're not fun. While it's more realistic to do worse as you get closer to death, it also means you stop being able to contribute effectively, and end up just wasting your turns and everyone's time.

>>49358118

Your argument is explicitly countered by the latest growing trend in RPG's. Rules light indie titles are exploding, and they make almost no mechanical distinctions at all, leaving it almost purely rooted in fluff. I don't care whether you like them or not, but it's a huge growing edge of the hobby and deserves acknowledgement even if it isn't to your taste.

>>49358050
But that EXACT SAME ATTACK doing the EXACT SAME AMOUNT OF DAMAGE against the SAME FUCKING GUY would have KILLED HIM if his HP had been 1 POINT lower. Meaning that the wonderful "explanation" of the DM's would suddenly become...

>"The mighty dragon almost has you inside his gaping maw as he burns you almost to fucking ash with his stream of blazing heat!!!!!!! YOU COLLAPSE IN COMPLETE AGONY!!!!!!!"

And not...

>"Ya got a bit hot under the collar. Still take 40 HP damage though... You know, so if a small rat nibbles on your ankle after you get singed, you'll die."

You're conflating AC and HP, which is even more gay than just defending HP as magical nonsense anti-logic.

AC is supposed to be how you dodge, deflect, absorb, and mitigate damage. HP is what gets hurt when you FAIL to avoid the attack. You roll a dice to determine HOW BADLY you got "DAMAGED" by it, and there are even DAMAGE TYPES to make this explicit.

Holy fucking shit D&D retards are hopeless tards by now.

>>49358118
Pretty sure people like DnD because it's simple and fun, and acts as a nice game for new people in the hobby, people who play with them, and people who just want to have a simple fun time.
Same reason Battlefield is more popular than Arma

HP is meant to be highly abstract simply because "here is your not-dead number" is a godsend in a world of multiple-page character sheets. KISS

>>49358118
But all of that can be explained by a competent GM. You don't need a mechanic for separating the distinction, just someone willing to separate it.

>>49358142
There's literally a guy on this board so angry that people can have fun and think in basic abstractions better than he can
Tell me anon, do you actually even have a group? I can't imagine anyone actually wanting to interact with you.

>>49358142

>But that EXACT SAME ATTACK doing the EXACT SAME AMOUNT OF DAMAGE against the SAME FUCKING GUY would have KILLED HIM if his HP had been 1 POINT lower. Meaning that the wonderful "explanation" of the DM's would suddenly become...

And the problem with this is...? It's an abstraction. It's doing its job.

>>49358145
>HP is meant to be highly abstract simply because "here is your not-dead number" is a godsend in a world of multiple-page character sheets. KISS

Isn't it a little weird that Hit Points (probably the most important resource) are "simple" and "abstract" in a game with multi-page character sheets and very specific rules for determining how well you can play the lute?

>>49358121
Instead of twisting my argument to dismiss it, how about you look at what I actually said? I think D&D's system would be better with an explanation, and I don't like to listen to retarded DM babbling to justify arbitrary mechanics that i know are only being perpetuated because D&D is popular and old. Unlike you fags who have Gary Gygax's cock so deep down your throat you can't even comprehend critically questioning that old dusty, arbitrary system.

>>49358143
>Pretty sure people like DnD because it's simple and fun,
The opposite, actually. People think that D&D must be simple and fun because people like it. I guarantee you that if D&D had never become popular and I personally came to /tg/ to tell you about the wonderful new system I came up with, you'd all fucking laugh in my face at how retarded the system is.

Just like the iPhone, Nike, and all the other giant brand names that retards flock towards and mindlessly justify.

File: 1409152181547.jpg (57KB, 500x727px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 500x727px

>>49358189
> very specific rules for determining how well you can play

>>49358046
First of all, every 40K Roleplay game has slightly different rules, so I had to read up on DH1 again. Secondly, based on that I challenge your choice of using DH 1E as basis for comparison, when later systems are more mature/simpler.

Using Deatwatch as basis instead:
1. Roll to hit.
2. Figure out location by reversing dice
3. Rolling damage
4. Subtracting armor/toughness.
5. Apply damage.

D&D:
1. Roll attack.
2. Roll damage.
3. Subtract any Damage Resistance.
4. Apply damage.

Beyond that each step has varying degrees of complexity (magic bonuses, etc) by itself. Furthermore, the action economy of both games is sufficiently complex. Actually, similarly complex.

>>49358142

>But that EXACT SAME ATTACK doing the EXACT SAME AMOUNT OF DAMAGE against the SAME FUCKING GUY would have KILLED HIM if his HP had been 1 POINT lower.

That's more or less exactly how it works with Lone Wolf as a system. HP is stamina and if you run out, that means that an attack finally got properly through and took you out of the fight. Until then you are just getting more and more tired, fatigued and suffering nicks.

>>49358081
>To be a roleplaying game you have to play roles
why people do that? why are the most successful rpgs fantasy or sci-fi rpgs? why are the most successful rpgs in general set in specific settings/catering to a certain genre?

it's like genre emulation is not a thing on /tg/.

>>49358182
So would be saying that the DM flips a coin every time you take damage. Heads you survive. Tails you die.

"MUH IT'S JUST DOING ITS JOB."
"MUH ABSTRACTION."

>>49358200
But you can't just subtract armor/toughness because penetration doesn't work that way

>Beyond that each step has varying degrees of complexity (magic bonuses, etc) by itself.
Are DH has special qualities for weapons that need to be taken into account too, I ignored them for simplicity.

>>49358220

In the right context? Sure.

Heck, there are systems that work like that. Kobolds Ate My Baby has you die whenever you fail a roll, to be swiftly replaced by a new Kobold.

>>49358196
>The opposite, actually. People think that D&D must be simple and fun because people like it.
Well once you prove that I'll be happy to agree, but until then, I'll go with a mostly simple system is generally preferable to a more complex one for new players. That's one of the reasons why DnD is "baby's first RPG"

>>49358212
(but you're not getting tired and fatigued. That's just fluff with no mechanical impact. Thus: shit.)

>>49358199
Perform (Cha)
Like Craft, Knowledge, and Profession, Perform is actually a number of separate skills.

You could have several Perform skills, each with its own ranks, each purchased as a separate skill.

Each of the nine categories of the Perform skill includes a variety of methods, instruments, or techniques, a small list of which is provided for each category below.

Act (comedy, drama, mime)
Comedy (buffoonery, limericks, joke-telling)
Dance (ballet, waltz, jig)
Keyboard instruments (harpsichord, piano, pipe organ)
Oratory (epic, ode, storytelling)
Percussion instruments (bells, chimes, drums, gong)
String instruments (fiddle, harp, lute, mandolin)
Wind instruments (flute, pan pipes, recorder, shawm, trumpet)
Sing (ballad, chant, melody)

Check
You can impress audiences with your talent and skill.

Perform DC Performance
10 Routine performance. Trying to earn money by playing in public is essentially begging. You can earn 1d10 cp/day.
15 Enjoyable performance. In a prosperous city, you can earn 1d10 sp/day.
20 Great performance. In a prosperous city, you can earn 3d10 sp/day. In time, you may be invited to join a professional troupe and may develop a regional reputation.
25 Memorable performance. In a prosperous city, you can earn 1d6 gp/day. In time, you may come to the attention of noble patrons and develop a national reputation.
30 Extraordinary performance. In a prosperous city, you can earn 3d6 gp/day. In time, you may draw attention from distant potential patrons, or even from extraplanar beings.

Action
Varies Trying to earn money by playing in public requires anywhere from an evening’s work to a full day’s performance. The bard’s special Perform-based abilities are described in that class’s description

Try Again
Yes. Retries are allowed, but they don’t negate previous failures, and an audience that has been unimpressed in the past is likely to be prejudiced against future performances. (Increase the DC by 2 for each previous failure)

>>49358133
Yeah, it's not really a contradiction. Indie games are basically campign-level publications that have a dedicated rpg system. People do that because they want to explore mechanics. Indie games are more on the experimental side too. They're kinda the (free) jazz of RPGs.

None of those Indie games change however that games like D&D, Star Wars, 40K Roleplay, Call of Cthulhu, Shadowrun remain at the heart of the role-playing hobby and that they are just a supporting act.

>>49358142
If that's how your DM described the differences, then they're not competent. Here's how I'd describe being hit by the same blast of dragonfire:

>30 HP
The dragon's fire envelops you, roasting you alive. You feel a brief wave of agony wash over you, then nothing. You're dead.

>40 HP
The dragon's fire washes over you, searing your flesh. You feel agony wash over you as you collapse to the ground, before succumbing to blissful unconsciousness.

>50 HP
The dragon's fire catches you, and you feel waves of agony radiating over your blistering flesh. Your adrenaline's keeping you up, but you're not long for this world if it gets you again.

>60 HP
You manage to fend off the worst of the dragon's fire, but you can definitely feel some nasty burns forming where it got you. You're not sure you'll be able to evade it next time.

>80 HP
You barely avoid the dragon's fire, but the heat of the flame has still burned your body a little. You'd better be careful, because next time you might not be so lucky.

>100 HP
You just manage to dodge the dragon's breath, but you can feel the heat washing over you. Your muscles are starting to ache from the exertion.

See the difference?

>>49357137
This.

Mythras/RuneQuest 6 shows how powerful and cinematic heroes can be in a lethal system. In a year long campaign played weekly, my players received two serious wounds and no major wounds because they played cautiously and tactically. I've run several short campaigns that resulted in 1 broken bone and nothing else.

And the -20 penalty is the simplified rules. The actually penalty is 33% - and the difficulty steps go 1/3 more difficult, 1/2, 9/10, and then impossible so once injured you can no longer say shoot an arrow into a strong wind.

>>49358252
>A list of stats is rules
>A list of suggested DC is rules

Here's the rules for play lute, roll preform lute.

>>49358143
People have liked D&D 3E and it was not simpler than your average other RPG out there. People play D&D because of brand recognition and the size of the community. D&D's success is, for the large part, self-replicating.

>>49358149
See >>49358003

>>49358225
Whether a shot penetrated armor or not is mechanically irrelevant in most cases (unless you're firing a needle gun).

>>49358220
Yeah, that would be an abstraction.
Just because something is also an abstraction doesn't mean it's the same thing, the same level of fun, or works as well, but yeah, those are they both are abstractions.
You know, taking someone's argument and making it ridiculous is a well know fallacy here

>>49358252
And all you have to know when it comes to that rule is that you roll a d20, add your ranks in whatever instrument you've trained in, add your charisma modifier and then check what DC you got over.

That isn't complex. Its basic addition and a single roll.

>>49358251
See >>49358121. If you want a death spiral mechanic, add one. But that's not fun for most people, which is why it's not the default.

>>49358289
>Whether a shot penetrated armor or not is mechanically irrelevant

"When a shot or blow hits a target, the hit ignores a number of Armour points on that Hit Location equal to the weapon's penetration value"

>>49358251

Actually, in a lot of the really big athletic events it goes with 'Roll with -1 if you have less than 20 stamina left, +1 if you have more than 30'.

Though it generally only does that for thing that are really pushing you both long and hard athletically. Not short burst stuff.

>>49358233
Nice deflection. Try again.

>>49358239
D&D used to be more complex and much simpler systems existed at the same time as it. It became popular off of branding, shamelessly stealing intellectual property (even using the actual term "Hobbits", for example) and packing as many spells and monsters into it as they could think of. Nobody who understood anything about game design thought it was a brilliant SYSTEM. Everybody who understood game design respected other systems more. It succeeded off of fluff, lore, and magic and the apologists like yourself have created some bizarro fucking world in your own heads where it's actually TEH BEST AN DATS WHY ITS TEH BIGGEST. There is literally a book about the subject, which I didn't read, but I did listen to the author discuss. So please die.

>>49358260
You're describing death. Try describing the same attack doing the same damage, but the guy survives with 1 HP and then dies to a rat biting him a few rounds later. Good luck!

>>49358307
What does the "abstract"? You have characters with different levels of health, different "AC", and different damages being done, but now they all have a 50/50 chance to do nothing or kill you instantly. For real, prove to me that you know what the word "abstraction" even means.

>>49358196
I read your post. You're complaining that being injured doesn't have mechanical consequences. I think mechanical consequences for injuries make the game less fun for the players. So did the designers of D&D.

With no mechanical consequences, you don't need rules for describing how someone is running out of HP, you just describe it how you like. There's no reason why it matters except for death spiral mechanics.

>>49358375
Meant to say "what does the COIN abstract"

>>49358375
>Try describing the same attack doing the same damage, but the guy survives with 1 HP and then dies to a rat biting him a few rounds later. Good luck!

The rat did at least 11 damage? That's a big fucking rat.

Or if you mean 'Only 1 HP until dead' then he's out cold and can't really stop the rat.

>>49358375

>Someone offers a direct counterexample
>Dismiss it out of hand

Yeah, you're real big fan of logic and consistency.

>>49358385
So why not come up with some internal logic for WHY being injured doesn't have mechanical consequences? Which part of an explanation would make it "LESS FUN" for you people? Wouldn't you also appreciate some kind of explanation that you could feel made sense in that universe? (Hint: you would absolutely fucking love it and defend that explanation to your death, but now you'll pretend you don't care because you're actually just a mindless apologist with no standards of your own.)

>>49358402
The rat does however much damage needed subtract the 1 point of HP keeping the player 100% active and effective. That magic point between life and death.

Go ahead and give the DM explanation for why that 1 HP is the difference between complete mental and physical effectivness and being incapacitated and helpless.

>>49358375
>The dragon's fire catches you, and you feel waves of agony radiating over your blistering flesh. Your adrenaline's keeping you up, but you're not long for this world if it gets you again.

>The rat bites at your leg, and you're too badly hurt to dodge. It manages to clip an artery, and blood starts spurting out of your body with each heartbeat. Your head starts spinning, and you collapse to the ground in shock.

GURPS.

>>49358375
>TEH BEST AN DATS WHY ITS TEH BIGGEST
I guess it wouldn't be a argument without strawmans.
>here is literally a book about the subject, which I didn't read, but I did listen to the author discuss
That's not even a point, Yeah, someone wrote a book, and you heard him speak, anyone can write a book. Maybe he was right, maybe he wasn't.

>D&D used to be more complex and much simpler systems existed at the same time as it.
In a different time with different mindsets for what they wanted. The average DnD player is not the average player back then, and the average DnD game is not the average DnD game back then, nor is it competing with the same average.
Sure does name rec have an effect, yeah of course, but that doesn't mean it's not relatively light on crunch compared to a lot of more game focused RPGs

>>49358464
t. apologist

>>49358478
That's a really clever and smart point

>>49358428
Oh, look, it's another strawman. There's a lot of those in this thread.

No, I don't particularly care as to whether there is or isn't an explanation for why being injured has or doesn't have mechanical consequences. I've seen systems that use them, and I don't feel particularly enlightened. Call it grit, call it luck, call it adrenaline, call it magic force fields, and I won't care. It's still the same underlying mechanic.

>>49358456
So my "adrenaline" is allowing me to jump, attack, and perform at 100% effectiveness despite me being "caught" by the fire with my flesh "blistering", hey? No side effects to being blistered?

And let me guess, these horrific blisters and the fact that my "adrenaline" is the only the "keeping me up" will be taken into consideration after the fight too, right? Adrenaline doesn't last forever, after all!

So once my "adrenaline" wears off (30 minutes tops) my character with 1HP will suddenly collapse? And my blisters... do they do anything? Affect anything if I manage to get out of combat? Are these meaningful explanations whatsoever, or just bullshit fluff that you made up? Will my friends back in town recognize me with these severe burns...? Did it burn away my hair, my equipment, or anything else? Or are the "blisters" actually nothing and I"m totally unaffected? Because it sounds like the latter.

>>49358538

At this point I kick you from the table for being a pedantic fuckwit bogging down the game.

>>49358538
Nope. They only affect your ability to dodge or deflect hits. No other consequences aside from those you roleplay. See >>49358121

>>49358538
Look man, people have come up with explanations to make it work every single time, and every single time you move the goal posts to "Well then what"
If someone explained to you how you could fluff it up, you'd just go "Then what" again.
Please, the fact that you lack imagination isn't anyone's fault.
The anon was giving you examples to show how it can work. If you can't make your own you are a sad and pathetic man.
I mean that, not even completely as an insult, having the ability to be creative is nice thing, it makes life a lot more beautiful and interesting. If I were you I would try to see if there's a way to grow a creatively gland

>>49358552
I would never play such a faggot-ridden game in the first place, unless to troll and piss off retards like you who can't accept how gay it is.

>Nope. They only affect your ability to dodge or deflect hits. No other consequences aside from those you roleplay.

Then what is my "AC", pray tell? Isn't that my ability to avoid "damage" with dodges and deflections?

I'd rather not hear any explanation of what happened to me than to hear something so poetic and seemingly meaningful, only to realize it means fuck all to my character.

I understand people not liking Death Spiral. I don't understand why people get so uptight about demanding some internal logic to back it up.

>>49358603
AC is your ability to avoid damage with no consequences. HP is your ability to avoid damage with consequences - namely, that it's harder for you to avoid damage in the future.

>>49358586
>It takes so much goddamn genius creativity to handwave everything that happens and shit out some generic explanations that don't actually correlate with anything in the game

Wow

>>49358628
Funny, I practically had to spoon feed that fucking logic to you people by bringing up AC and drawing the correlation, and it isn't even the official explanation of the game. The apologists have no limits

>Apologists
>Internal Logic

Man, you really love abusing buzzwords.

>>49358666
Also >Not an argument
50% sure he's /pol/ cancer just because I know that's a meme there that's almost exclusive.

>>49358666
>buzzwords

Buzzword

>>49358655
Sorry, you spoonfed what to me? I've been saying all along that the first part of HP represents bruises and exhaustion. AC representing avoiding attacks without consequences is so obvious I didn't feel like it needed to be said.

>>49353985
The purpose of a health meter is to distinguish between and transition to and from the Healthy -> Injured -> Dying -> Dead states. Hit Points in D&D 3E and 5E are a poor representation of a health meter because there's no Injured status; you're either Healthy or you're Dying/Dead. Hit points aren't a bad mechanic per se, just implemented poorly most of the time.

The Angry GM has a great suggestion for improving this in 5E; make the top 2/3rds of a character's Hit Points instead Fighting Spirit. It's lost first, and when you run our of Fighting Spirit you have a level of exhaustion, disadvantage to your attack rolls, and enemies have advantage to save against your effects. It makes you weakened offensively while keeping your defences intact, which is a good way to encourage players to heal up or retreat.

Fate does a good job with its system. Up to 5 hp and light/medium/hard injury wich alter your stats and can be translate into hp. E.g getting 2 damage means -2hp, or an light injury wich can mean a -points on rolls. Or damaged equiment.
I houserule that light injurys only take a sort of short rest, medium requires a doctor and medical equiment and hard drags trough a whole session and is life enderanging. Also you can downgrade a medium to a light with first aid and long rest.

>>49358740
>damaged equiment.
The idea is that your armor broke?

>>49358538
The answer to all of those things is yes. Can you fight at 100% effectiveness with adrenaline? To your bodies max limit, yes. Obviously blisters will slow that down a bit, but not to a degree that matters. You are already high on adrenaline from shock.

Will it affect you after combat? it damn well better. Having no consequence for going into an adrenaline rush would be dumb.

And the best thing is, all of this shit can easily be houseruled.

>>49353985
I remember there was mention of Blood, Sweat, and Tears.

Essentially:
Blood: Physical HP
Sweat: Mental HP
Tears: Sanity

>>49358276
>stats aren't rules

okay then

>>49355511

Shadowrun?

Ergh, you are already using dice polls, so you might as well drop some dice.

Does Shadowrun give you a penalty for going below 0 HP/Wounds whatever?

Does getting hit by a car in system always take you out of an encounter or at least daze/stun you for multiple rounds?

These things are required for a "realistic" game.... despite SR have buff Orcs, and fancy future tech...

Also, I'm not sure why only being able to do 10% chunks of damage means realism.

That seems like a concession to the amount of work you would have otherwise.

>>49359000
>Does Shadowrun give you a penalty for going below 0 HP/Wounds whatever?
That's your dying state.

>Does getting hit by a car in system always take you out of an encounter or at least daze/stun you for multiple rounds?
Pretty sure, I don't know if they really had rules to transfer kinetic energy to damage. Maybe in some splat book covering it I never read.

>These things are required for a "realistic" game
Realism is a gradient. I don't imagine many games have you roll on blood poisoning when you get shot. Plus I was comparing it against DnD, which relatively is a lot more realistic

>Also, I'm not sure why only being able to do 10% chunks of damage means realism.
From a pistol you could take 5+number of hits total. Which could potentially kill someone.

>>49359000
>>49359056
Wait, there are ramming rules, I should have known better, a car going 21 meters a turn can kill someone

>>49359056

I could have been clearer. If you get below 0 in a fight and go back up past 0 in SR...

1. Is that possible in a short time frame?

2. Is there any lingering effects for being so close to death recently?

>>49359136
>Is that possible in a short time frame?
Healing on your own takes a while, first aid can be used on spot though. I think if you get healed that way you can get up quickly.

>Is there any lingering effects for being so close to death recently?
Other than wounds making you less able to do things, the only thing I can remember is that you can only revive so much healing, so you'll have to rest much longer.

File: sr5_condition_monitor.png (383KB, 697x703px) Image search: [Google]

383KB, 697x703px

I like Shadowrun's way of handling wounds with the separate tracks and the stacking of penalties, but I've always felt you had to mark them off in the wrong direction. Some mage who dumps his Body stat is going to have like 9 boxes and only have a penalty of -3 right before dropping. Meanwhile, the street sammy with two extra rows of damage could be taking -5 to rolls before he drops, even though he's so much more likely to withstand the pain enough to keep standing.

I know certain qualities help this a little bit (like the one where you don't start taking penalties until your fourth box in), but few players I've dealt with ever picked it when there are so many other better options for your Karma. I feel like the system would be better if you marked off damage vertically. Earning those extra rows of boxes would be far more attractive, and thematically the big guts-and-muscles guy would be able to take more hits before the penalties start racking up.

>>49358887
Oh yippie! I can play with my own personal system! D&D is so brilliant!

Thanks Rule Zero, you give me permission to invent any game I want while still being chained to D&D and giving them credit!

>>49358957
Okay this is actually really cool.

>>49358957
And the classes should be the Good (warrior), the Bad (rogue), and the Ugly (mage)

>>49359283

So healing surges with no "did you acquire drain bamage for getting the shit between out of you, while being patched up almost instantly afterward."

>>49358957
>>49359414
I really like that.

>>49358957
So what's the difference between sanity and mental hp?

Huge fan of how Phoenix command handles things. An attack does damage based on location hit, penetration and power of the attack. You get a Physical Damage number from this and compare it to their endurance of sorts and basically get a chance for them to become incapacitated. Most gun damage will give the max of 97% if it's anything more than a grazing wound. If they become incapacitated, the total PD is summed up and cross referenced with medical availability at hand and gives a basic time left to live. Once the time runs out the person makes a death check, dying if they fail, persisting for a much smaller amount of time otherwise and continuously checking. If a person has about five minutes to live without first aid, but first aid becomes available he could then survive for a few hours instead, enough time to get him to a hospital which boosts the check to days out in advance. Extremely severe wounds are harder to pass and can cause a death check in fractions of a second or even force the person to die.

If instead the person does not become incapacitated the damage is sort of stored in a wound damage count and on a new wound the new PD count is added to the total so far WD and then that whole number is used for the incap check. The more they get hurt the more they're likely to drop.

That's the basics of it at least.

>>49358845
Yes, if you get more damage then the armor gives you it gets damaged or destroyed. Im playing in an scifi setting, and most armor gives utility, often the missing utility is worse then the damage. If its repairable is decided on case to case basis.

>>49359365
Change it so the penalties are as follows:
1 Box Remaining: -3
2-3 Boxes Remaining: -2
4-6 Boxes Remaining: -1
That way the guy with 9 boxes is going to start feeling the pain sooner than the guy with 15 boxes. Alternatively, set the range and penalty values to whatever you feel like. I'm not the boss of you.

>create a non-sensical scenario
>"HAHA YOU CANT EXPLAIN THIS SCENARIO THE WAY I WANT IT! I WIN!"

>>49355478

ur readinn it sdrawkcab dumbacunt.

op sez: stat dmg wld b cool instead of 1hp im good2go.

anon sez: nu dmg types so cool. wait, 1 hp gud t2 go? dnd tard!

u sez: herp derp op talk bout stat damage an u think he play dnd. wat? i no see ref 2 1 hp fighting stronk.

>>49358349
yeah, so what happens is the attacker calls out: I influct 11 damage, pen 4 in the head. the target then informs the attacker how much went through.

>>49358375
the funniest part is that the moment D&D divides up HP into meatpoints and luck, everyone but the nostalgiafags will praise it, claim that it was about time and they were looking for it all along and then they will everywhere proclaim D&D a truly modern system.

jesus christ.

>>49358456
i'd like to see this kind of crap narration in a novel of some high profile fantasy author.

>>49361555
I don't see you offering to pay me high profile fantasy author royalties.

>>49361836
well, if authors don't deliberately include such into their stories, it can't be a good storytelling device

>>49362321
Authors don't use conflict resolution mechanics. Authors wrote what happens to characters based on how they want the plot to go. Roleplaying games are interactive stories, though. If one person's just sitting there telling you whether you succeed or fail or how wounded you are based on what they want to happen, then there's no real point to having players.

>>49362902
the point went seemingly over your head. i was pointing out that the narration coming out of the proposed rat bite scenario was utter shit, even for a role-playing game.

>>49362948
Then maybe you shouldn't be treating rats as combat encounters when your characters are capable of fighting and killing dragon's.

>>49359891
I think one is short term and long term hp. Like being exposed to lovecraftian nightmares compared to being pushed to the limits of your intellect.

>>49363001
the character in that scenario can't. he just can barely survive a dragon's breath, only to be killed by >insert stupid minimal HP loss of your choice here>

>>49353985
WFRP technically has hit points (Wounds), but the pool is much smaller for PCs (usually going to be less than 20), and fighting at 1 Wound is dangerous.

Once you hit 0 Wounds, all damage beyond is a critical hit. You never have 'negative' hit points - it always stays at 0 - but any damage that cannot be absorbed by Wounds means a roll on the critical table, which gets lethal VERY quickly.

Further, having low Wounds means you heal more slowly, either by natural means or with low level medical assistance. 3 or less Wounds is 'severe' and more difficult to recover from. I feel it works.

>>49363224
My point is that if you're throwing stupid things at the PCs to shave off their one HP, then of course you're not going to get the kind of narrative you get in stories. You're going to get the kind of narrative you get where stupid things happen to characters to shave off their HP.

>>49363318

I think that style of damage, which a few other FFG RPGs does, works pretty good.

I'd have the damage be less swingy (when a 1d10 attack can do either nothing or a half of your health, getting hit loses meaning) but threatened serious character damage is still good.

My brain instantly went to the losing blood thing you could even go onto the vitality stat changes the amount of blood you coul lose before death

>>49358267
We players decided to use simplified rules for that, although it isn't that much calculating desu. Do you round the fractions down or up, normally?

But yeah, RQ6/Mythras ruleset is awesome. I've played a spear/sling wielding Oberyn style abcrobat with actually no armour at all (strike rank 15 for the win) and the worst wound I got was 2 damage to my left leg when an stray arrow hit me. That in about 10 or 11 sessions and we play pretty combat-heavily. Our party leader is a tactical genius though, even though he's quite new to the ruleset. Bottlenecking with shields on front and spears in back, ambushing, making the enemy infight, running away - those are the way to go, not direct combat because that's how you get killed.

>>49368473
I use the game mastering table, has the values from 1-300 with adjusted difficulty target numbers. We played on roll20 and those sheets do it automatically too. Also, always round up in Mythras.

The worst injury at the table was a scared dirt farmer shooting himself in the shoulder with a heavy crossbow after dropping it, but that was a double fumble on the NPCs part. We had a player take a full fire breath attack once as he was burned really badly all over his body under his armor. Nothing else but the occasional out of luck point serious injury. One group had Backlash going a lot, and another used ropes and lassoed everything that was that large or used bolas on smaller targets. I love the focus on gaining an advantage and then worrying about damage. Even our unarmed fighting guy was able to dart in and give a few good hits to the face at once to take people down safely.

>>49361531
I would like D&D to switch to codified DCs that are not attached to armor values, "meat points", and HP as luck, grit, & armor. Some damage can then evade armor or even wound directly, like a sneak attack.

A dragon is a tough thing to fight, and has a 20 DC to hit with a huge sack of HP. When you finally land a telling blow it's almost dead already (get past armor as HP into actual meat points). A player has 10 + proficiency + DEX for their DC, meat points by class, luck HP by Con and other abilities, and HP from quality of armor. It uses the same mechanics in a way that makes sense.

File: Unknown_Armies_2nd_Edition.pdf_-_Foxit_Reader_2016-09-15_21-51-59.png (86KB, 300x285px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 300x285px

Personally, I'm a fan of the Wounds system from Unknown Armies.
Players have a max amount of Wound Points equal to their Body Stat(or a flat 50, in 3e, without giving yourself an Identity to increase it)
The players aren't intended to keep track of their wound total at all; instead, the GM keeps track of it, and after each hit they take or at the start of each of their turns, tells them roughly how they feel, based on which thresholds they've hit.
Basically, as you take damage, the GM is supposed to describe all the aches and pains, and as you cross certain fuzzy thresholds, you start taking penalties.

Instead of telling you how much health you have left, the GM is encouraged to tell you at certain points that, eg, you have a headache, your vision is blurry, and there's a burning pain in your lungs from hyperventilating; that's on top of the blood dripping from your forehead, and all the other cuts and bruises you've sustained.

Granted, the 3e playtest fuzzies all that up a bit, since there's no penalties mentioned that I can see after a quick skim, but you still get the rough descriptions of how you feel from your GM based on how much damage you've taken, rather than tracking it yourself.

>>49353985
For progressive damage the system from Classic World of Darkness was pretty good. Everybody had about the same level of health, but people who were tougher, wore armour, or certain monsters, were better at absorbing damage. Your health levels were...
>Perfectly Healthy
>Bruised: no penalties yet
>Hurt: -1 penalty to all actions
>Wounded: -2 penalty to all actions.
>Mauled: -2 penalty to all actions
>Crippled: -5 penalty to all actions and you can barely move
>Incapacitated: unconscious
>Dead: Dead
In addition, the system differentiated between "bashing" and "lethal" damage, representing that being smacked with a bat was less lethal than being shot.
Of course, this wouldn't work outside of the Storyteller system.

For a d20 game I've always liked "wounds and Vitality", but that's most appropriate for a sci-fi or low-magic fantasy game. Doesn't really work in a high-magic high-power setting.

>>49368789
>The worst injury at the table was a scared dirt farmer shooting himself in the shoulder with a heavy crossbow after dropping it
Lol'd

Gaining advantage first is probably the most important thing in RQ. Our GM has realized this, which is pretty fun occasionally. Being at a severe disadvantage, some enemies will even give up before any proper blows are struck, which usually annoys the murderhobos in our table. One time we had to defend a small village from bandit attack 7 samurai-style, our beloved bard(ish) PC came up with a plan: as we didn't have clearly enough men to fend off about 60-ish bandits in a village this small, we set up a ruse I guess the player picked from actual Japanese history. We evacuated the village in the middle of night so that if shit got real, at least villagers were safe. In the morning we opened up the gates and from there was a straight view to the middle of the village, where our bard pc went sitting and playing a flute. The bandits saw this, they knew we had fooled them before in an ambush, so a couple of lucky bluff and insight rolls later they decided that it was an ambush and didn't enter. The best part was that our bard then called out thanks to their leader for playing their part, critted again and the whole bandit mob fell into a bloody infight because they thought their leader a traitor. Meanwhile the rest of us had sneaked in their backs and broke off their morale with a glorious cavalry charge. Good times.

>>49354239
>>49356795
Fantasy Craft also uses Vitality/Wound to good effect.

I also agree it's a pretty nice way to model things, because it also means you can have the Very Serious And Important health pool have different expectations and healing rules than the Luck+Dodge+Endurance health pool.

>>49356829
Legend of the Wulin system was kind of weird for me because it put one step between the immediate resource depletion (HP) or penalty after an attack, making it like a sort of scratch damage system.

Though in hindsight, it kind of reminds me of some hybrid of FATE and Silhouette.

>>49353985
A lot of the system's I've played have some sort of HP or Threshold system with deathspiral mechanic. Savage Worlds, Silhouette, LotFR, Feng Shui, and Fate once you factor in Consequences all get bad for you once you start taking wounds.

>>49363391
What a backwards way of thinking. Instead of having a logical system where everything makes sense, you have to engineer each encounter to "feel" epic so that the blatantly broken logic of the game doesn't show.

>>49363391
because guys who fight dragons never encounter more mundane challenges, like a lone rabid dog, right?

File: 1391715027198.png (1MB, 921x1019px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 921x1019px

>>49353985
>Alt HP systems
Still voting Ironclaw for this

Not a fan of -1 per wound stacking. Bland deathspiral tacked onto boring HP. Nothing special happens. Need mechanically meaningful effects.

Ironclaw is stupid easy to run: Damage only exists on a hit-by-hit basis, check off effects (all binary) you don't have for X damage, everybody uses same effects track, AND its stupid easy to remember.

More thematic than HP without just stacking wound penalties to rolls: effects Afraid, Reeling, Overkill, Sick, etc, are more meaningful in combat than negative roll modifiers. Afraid can't initiate attacks only counter attacks until either retreat or regroup or rally, and Reeling is the mechanic by which two peasants with dirks to take down an armored knight just by having the extra man or making even shit weapons like the sling always useful.

Dunno, just always thought mechanics boiling down to tallying "+/- 1" really kills the mood of a game.

>>49370723
sometimes you don't want to have to keep track of more elaborate hit effects. sometimes you do.

>>49370723
Fantastic system. This is much more like what I want. If my own design wasn't just SLIGHTLY better I would feel quite discouraged!

Thanks for sharing this!

>>49370792
>If my own design wasn't just SLIGHTLY better I would feel quite discouraged!
my thoughts precisely

>>49370792
>>49370788
Really, the core of why it works well is that they boiled all combat stuff down to only about a dozen effects, all binary yes/no status, then eliminated actual +/- math wherever possible, and actually expanded mechanically different options rather than +/- bonus options. Easy to remember and designed for number-phobic players.

It's actually a good skirmish system, or basis thereof, for a tabletop skirmish wargame when you test it with all the weapons and build options since it requires tight teamwork. It was designed to reward synergy between characters over solo powergaming.

Additionally: I love the caster balance, and the non-combat non-caster options in actual combat, as well as the expanded movement system, armor system, general feats-tree design and options within, and actual dice mechanics.

Bang for your buck and time it's a stupid efficient system.

>>49370792
>If my own design wasn't just SLIGHTLY better
Same. I've been trying to mash major ideas from Ironclaw with a couple other RPGs.

>>49370792
Feel free to share, anon!

>>49370883
>>49370723
Wasn't this the one with the dice mechanics that you can actually read combat narrative from?
"You stumble and their strength overpowers your shield parry, piercing your leather armor to hit chainmail. You are sent reeling again, struck with fear and pain".

>>49370933
I'll say this: I dislike HP on every level (functionally, thematically, bookkeeping) and I love the Death Spiral. So in my game you don't lose HP when you're hurt, you lose other things that are more meaningful. The "Blood, Sweat, and Tears" idea I saw above is getting closer to it, but I don't want to describe the real meat of it. Nor do I want to share how I avoid the bookkeeping issues that come with added realism.

>>49370967
Yeah, I said I liked the dice mechanics. Each factor in a roll has it's own die, and each one that succeeds over the opposing highest is 1 hit. The armor and other soak is also rolled, each of which can reduce by 1.

You can actually read off WHY and HOW an outcome happened. I never cared for d20 systems because of this since everything gets lumped together every roll, and AC is this generic blob of dodging and actual armor. This splits up dodge/parry into actions, armor into an actual mechanic, and each reason an action may succeed such that you can actually tell which did what.

Also forgot one of the key combat things I liked: reactionary combat. Defenders actually get options, and attacks can be bi-directional in one roll for most. Not a lot of systems where the attacker getting killed during their own attack action because they opened their guard is a common occurrence.

>>49370986
>I don't want to
Might as well. We have game design thread generals just for feedback and testing.

Everything has already been done or thought of, and if not then a very close variant of it. There's no Donut Steel to be had. I guarantee you've got just a mishmash of tidbits from other systems you didn't even know about.

>>49370967
>>49371022
compare with D&D where all of this is a GM asspull instead of mechanical. and they're still trying to sell us D&D's HP and AC are good.

>You can actually read off WHY and HOW an outcome happened.
what i have been talking about the whole thread. and i am swearing to you, the moment D&D adapts such mechanics, the deendeefags will all come out how much they like the "new" mechanics, always supported the idea, and they will boasting how modern D&D now is.

pure cancer.

>>49371036
i wouldnt do so if i was him. innovation is still possible, even if it is not entirely new. nothing ever is, even D&D was build on something else (wargames). keep it close to your chest and let people find it out in publication.

>>49371070
The moment D&D changes, another Pathfinder which is a rehash of the old unchanged system comes out and takes most of the players with it. People don't like change unless they're explicitly seeking it.

Mainly why I really like Ironclaw. The designers for 2nd edition made a bullet point list of all parts of D&D and went down it going "fuck that, fuck that, fuck that....", and frankly it's change from 1st to 2nd edition is more impressive from a "trying new shit" perspective than 3.5 to 4 to 5th.

>>49371079
I don't pretend to know more than 5 or 6 different systems, but I have read the "RPG Design Patterns" book and didn't see it anywhere in there, so that told me a lot. I just want credit for my system if it catches on. To do that, I want to present it with the rest of the system all at once.

>>49358957
>Blood, Sweat, and Tears.
>>49370986
>"Blood, Sweat, and Tears"

See: Numenera. 3 resource pools for your stats, actions can exhaust it as "soft damage" by spending, and actual hard damage from damage removes and lowers the actual capacity until healed. Very fun if you use poker chips for your pools.

I'm going to guess you've got some dice rules you think are clever, some extended character resource pools which cover more than generic HP, and some kind of effects system with damage.

You know what the best resource tracker I saw was? Paperclip slider. Down the side of the character sheet are numbered cells. Mark maximum and whatever important segments (eg into 5ths or something). Use a paperclip on the side of the paper and slide it up and down to mark position. Various effects applied eg when resource enters 2/5ths of max.

>>49371136
You gotta read all systems ever published to really know for sure before you yourself publish and find XYZ were in ABC from 1988 and prior.

>>49371136
You still need playtesting and feedback, anon.

>>49371136
>>49371152
Actually if we're talking game design, you know what my biggest pet peeve is? Not HP, but "feats" and "classes" and where you should draw the line at restricting player options with what are basically fucking unlockables. Hate that shit. Also hate it when it's just a bunch of numbers which turn every "cool" option into a quantized MMO ability with cooldown. D&D was doing that long before 4e embraced it harder.

>>49371136
>"RPG Design Patterns" book
That exists?

Do we have Outsider Art? In RPG design? Google Outsider Art. To say: RPGs designed by people with no exposure to RPGs and designed it in a vacuum. If you want original that may be a place to look for out of the box inspiration.

>>49371175
>>49371152
>>49371079
He's probably got a couple details or specifics in the implementation that are unique. Give him some faith guys.

>>49371175
This. Just throw what you've got behind a project name. It's what every other wannabe game designer is doing in a crappy PDF. Yes of course inspiration would be taken without credit if you just posted shit 100% anonymously with no name attached to the project or even the project itself. No, you shouldn't try to develop something in a vacuum.

File: SW_Ad_1024x1024.jpg (84KB, 960x450px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 960x450px

>>49353985
My favorite alternative to hit points is how the Savage Worlds system handles damage. As you take damage you start to accumulate -1 penalties and once you would take your fourth penalty you are instead incapacitated.

Adds a good degree of tension to combat.

>>49371207
I'm giving him some faith by wanting to see what he has come up thus far. Put it in a PDF and write his name on top, how hard it can be?

>>49371177
>you know what my biggest pet peeve is?

I knew even before you told me.

>>49371136
same here but I am telling you this: you need to study more systems. heed this advice, even if seems needless work. it isn't. only recently i found that Runequest 6 has some (vague, admittedly) resemblance to what I am doing. it is always a bit disheartening initially but then again you realize on second thought how your own mechanics differ and what its actual strengths are.

also, the RPG Design Patterns book is by no means comprehensive (is it even CURRENT?). don't rely on that alone.

anyway, my quickstart will be released in coming months, it's all taking shape very nicely, even the art is amazing.

>>49371175
that's not even my main concern. he needs publicity. as for me, i will put up a blog in coming weeks for my game, leading up to the release of the quickstart. this will happen at the exact moment I am convinced that even if someone was willing to rip off my ideas, they couldn't match my game's execution any time soon.

File: youll-never-at.jpg (14KB, 581x45px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 581x45px

>>49371152
I'm looking at Numenera's site now. I can't seem to download the actual character sheet, and I found <pic related> on the page, which wasn't encouraging...

Your guesses are pretty good, and Numenera sounds comparable to what I'm designing. Obviously I do think my dice rules are clever. I started with the paperclip idea years ago but have ended up with poker chips. Sounds like Numenera encourages that, or is that just how you decided to handle them?

>>49371175
I do, which is why I'm slowly doing playtests with my brothers and friends first. Throwing it lazily on a 4chan thread might gain me a few offhand remarks if I'm lucky (and endless comparisons to other RPG systems instead of real feedback) but I can't actually see people's reactions while playing it.

>>49371192
It does exist. Somebody linked it on 4chan once and i snagged it. It's free to distribute, too. Try to find it.

And I've been designing this same system ... not quite in a vaccuum for over 10 years already, on and off. My brothers give me feedback, and they mostly know RPGs through videogames but are open to the idea of trying a tabletop RPG if it's clever and not a pain in the ass. Only recently have I come to /tg/ and dared to see if there were much better systems already. I also bought the latest GURPS handbooks and the 5e Dungeon Master's Guide to get comparisons to the big boys. I still haven't stolen anything from another system yet, only found out that others had the same idea after the fact.

>>49371207
Implementation is everything, isn't it? I honestly have no idea why the hell people post PDF files of character sheets and ask for feedback without any context of the game's core design. How do you know whether the stats listed are worth including if you don't know the rest of the rules?

>>49371411
i have been giving advice on layout with character sheets in the past, so that's what it is good for at least.

>>49371334
I'm not convinced that 4chan's feedback is worth anything. According to the "confessions" threads there are tons of people here to literally roleplay as roleplayers and don't actually touch the stuff. They just like talking about it.

Isn't it best to test the game with your ideal audience? As in, people you personally know and respect, who don't already have tons of preconceptions and biases?

>>49371451
It's best to test with at least 3 groups, with only 1 of them being people you actually interact with personally (if that).

You need to see how people deal with the game without knowing you or using your guidance.

You should also be especially interested in their first impressions (without you being there to guide them), as they often determine the rest of their experience.

>>49371533
Here's the thing, though: giving worthwhile feedback is itself a very rare skill. I'd rather have the feedback of somebody who I know is smart and knows how to pinpoint issues.

If I give my game to strangers, I want to personally see how their game goes, because I'll notice things about their experience that not even they realized. That's what got me into designing my own game in the first place.

>be me
>playing D&D with one friend and 3 strangers
>keep noticing which parts of the game they're enjoying and which parts they're just putting up with
>they all say the game is good and fun, but clearly it's just "good enough" and many aspects are not fun at all
>talk to some of them separately later on and ask them about things i noticed
>each of them has an epiphany

People suck at articulating their experiences. For example, I already know that "lore" (ie. story fluff, marketing material, artwork, vibes, flavor, whatever you want to call it) and social dynamics account for 90% of what people find appealing about an RPG. Focusing on a good system is actually the opposite of what people care about. The system can be total garbage as long as you have compelling fiction and some entertaining social gimmicks built in.

Therefore, unless I can see how the players are handling the actual systems I designed, I don't trust their feedback.

>>49371669
Samefag here, I want to expand on this thought.

If you really want to appeal to audiences and get positive feedback regardless of your system, create an inspiring setting and throw in social gimmicks.

For example:
>People in the world use genetically-engineered elephants with mounted weapons!
>Your characters can mind-spy on each other while they're traveling, allowing you to all see and hear what the others are seeing and hearing at any time!

That right there sells a game to the right audience. Without any mention of stats, rules, or implementation, they'll want to explore that setting and use those social gimmicks.

>>49370436
>>49370516
One of the most basic rules of running a roleplaying game is to never call for a roll unless there's a possibility of failure. If you make a rat or dog into a combat encounter, there's a possibility it'll kill the character it's fighting. If there's no possibility it'll kill them, don't put them in combat. But if you put them into combat and then complain about the outcome, you just might be retarded.

I remember having an idea for an alternate HP (and combat attached to it) system awhile back. As I recall, it was basically a modified Shadowrun. I never wrote it down, so it's pretty rough, but the basic idea was as follows:

>Have a pool of combat points that goes towards actions
>You can spend a number of points up to your skill level for any action associated with said skill
>Points spent= dice rolled, everything above 50% (4 and up for a d6) is a "check"
>An action succeeds based on whether the number of checks is at least equal to the target number for the task
>At the end of a round, a number of points was added to your pool equal to the number of checks you rolled throughout the round plus your remaining HP

Damage was resolved as such:
>Attack's skill (sword, gun, etc) vs Defender's skill (block for most things, evade for AoE, resist for mental attacks)
>Checks on defense roll negate checks on attack roll
>If attack roll beats defense roll, weapon damage plus excess checks are applied as damage
>Defender's armor value diverts damage to their pool
>Damage in excess of armor or remaining combat points is applied to defender's HP

Basically, one's combat points was their stamina and damage applied to them was the result of fatigue and superficial wounds. Damage applied to HP represented more tangible wounds and I think it accrued further debilitation beyond decreased combat point regeneration. The idea was, the more you battered an opponent, the less options, both defensive and offensive, they would have to get back at you. Getting a good hit in is debilitating, but you could still power through it if you had enough in reserve.

IIRC, this was supposed to accompany some pretty high-power stuff and provide an in-game reason for not just opening with your strongest attack and that was because if you did there was a good chance the enemy could negate most of the damage. So, if you wanted to get the most bang for your buck, you had to wait for an opening.

>>49353985
For some RPG's such as COC and D&D and occasionally some Dark Heresy Hardcore
I use a feature based on realism and injuries and pain wherein basically I just describe how your getting more and more fucked up till yah dead I use it alot in Hardcore RP's where we focus more on being in character and playing out a story

>>49371669
>Here's the thing, though: giving worthwhile feedback is itself a very rare skill. I'd rather have the feedback of somebody who I know is smart and knows how to pinpoint issues.

Which is why you want to have as many playtesters as possible, so there's a chance for such a rare gem without your direct influence coloring his views.

Most of your prospective players also won't be on the level of that guy. You want to know how your average player will react to the game's mechanics, presentation, theme, even layout and shit like that.

Also, it's terribly easy to cherry pick people whose feedback you like because it aligns with your own and is positive.

>For example, I already know that "lore" (ie. story fluff, marketing material, artwork, vibes, flavor, whatever you want to call it) and social dynamics account for 90% of what people find appealing about an RPG.

This is a gross generalization and reveals your limited experience.

>>49371761
Congratulations, you have discovered how shallow clickbait articles and kickstarter shit is made.

>>49371451
i'm the wrong person to ask. actually i am megalomaniac enough to believe that playtesting is overrated.

>inb4 that's insane
maybe, maybe not. while i have learned some things about my system in playtests, the impact was rather light to medium. for the most part, playtesting has rather served to reaffirm some concerns i have had about certain parts about my system, rather than uncovering new significant issues.

but then again, i am merely preparing a quickstart at this point, which limits the need and scope for playtesting. i can imagine things will be very different as soon as chargen and more character options come into play.

>>49372016
I am already very critical of my own views and don't want positive feedback. Even if somebody loved my system I want them to give criticism, not praise. I have people who do that, because my older brothers don't give one shit about protecting my feelings, trust me. They have shot down several of my precious little ideas and I've had to accept that they were right.

Anybody who playtests looking for positive feedback is a plain retard in my opinion, so there's no cherrypicking.

>This is a gross generalization and reveals your limited experience.
Look at which games are most popular. Look at what makes them popular. Look at actual average people playing. Who is gushing about systems? Nobody. Maybe Burning Wheel fans, but seems like most of them just like to say they own it and not actually play.

I've discussed my ideas with dozens of people face to face. They always nod along with the system shit, but the moment I start talking about my lore ideas their ears perk up and they want to know more. One guy straight up said he would play my game the moment I explained the lore ideas. Others said they would try my game based on social gimmicks. Nobody has ever said something truly positive or negative about the system because... guess what! People don't comprehend systems, it holds no appeal to them.

>Congratulations, you have discovered how shallow clickbait articles and kickstarter shit is made.
...And how D&D itself became popular and has remained so for decades.

>>49372212
Not insane. The first complete playable version of your game should never be based around feedback. That's like test driving a car with no windshield or seats. You can have the best engine in the world but who the fuck is going to be able to judge it properly?

You need to have a vision, discuss it, get viewpoints on the ideas perhaps, and playtest it yourself to see how it works... But showing other people? They don't know what your complete vision will be.

>>49372473
i have never met a single roleplaying group IRL which didnt occasionally discuss systems. individual players who didnt care? sure. but at the gaming table, talk about system happens.

games are composed of setting and system and a system perceived as bad can really drag down a setting. see rifts. system matters.

conversely, I remember when shadowrun and its dice pools came out. people want to try out new mechanics, they want new experiences. different mechanics give a different feel to a game. and when the feel matches the setting, that's pretty good. WFRP 1E/2E's system matches the setting very well. same with dark heresy, probably the most relevant game of the 00s.

system matters. it IS a selling point. the best games combine great setting with great system.

>>49373323
I guess one is like sugar (gimmicks and lore) and the other is like meat (systems). People get excited for sugar but they stick around for meat.

Hp's, levels, classes, feats, are all shitty abstractions. D&D was so influential that not only are we stuck with them in pen and paper but vidya as well.

I like Rune Quest; HP per limb; lower hp totals.

Going into negative HP in a non-vital area means resilience rolls to stay conscious; not being healed within rounds equal to your constitution + power means you bleed out.

Going into negative in a vital area like the head, abdomen or chest is a resilience roll to save or die, then you start bleeding out of you make that save.

Major wounds (negavive hp in an area) always result in losing 1d4 combat actions even if you make the resilience roll not to pass out.

>>49358323

Actually, in 3rd edition, it'd be more like

>Take the value rolled on the die (1d20)
>Add CHA modifier
>Add Perform: X modifier
>Add modifiers from feats
>Add modifiers from class abilities
>Subtract modifiers if the audience is of a different species (because shit like comedy doesn't translate well.
>Add any other situational modifiers that apply to this situation (ex: wearing a fancy suit to garner attention (+X) or performing a dance in front of a group of hardened mercenaries (-X).
>Compare to value rolled against the DC of the check.

It might not necessarily seem like a whole lot to someone who has played for a while but to a newbie, having to keep track of all those numbers, especially when some don't stack with one another and others cancel each other out, can be confusing.

I think 5e did it better but that was mostly because it's 1d20+Stat+Prof. and anything that would give you an edge/drawback comes down to advantage vs. disadvantage instead.

>>49373782
i like classes. and if we mean by feat advantages and disadvantage sor edges & flaws - i am in favor of those.