Banishing "Sacred Cows"

[Ridley's Cohort]

Getting rid of elements like levels changes the game so fundamentally that it wouldn't be D&D anymore. Thus, there would be a lot of extremely unhappy D&D fans - even more than the 1e/2e/OD&D diehards who eschew 3e. All this for little gain - most of the people who wanted classless/levelless/whateverless RPGs probably have another game of choice, one they've played for years.

A legitimate point. But not one included in the essay I criticized. The reasoning really doesn't go beyong "this has a purpose, therefore it is good". That is why I think the essay is very uninsightful; it is a number of ideas without underlying logic to hold them together.

I do generally agree that classes, levels, HPs are defining essential characteristics of D&D, and they serve useful purposes. If you ditch any of them it is questionable whether the game is still D&D.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

I think that is largely a matter of perspective. I think the HP system, if anything, AIDS in a dramatic feel.

...

But then you get into the big fight. You get in a few scrapes, and the enemy hits you with a blow that leaves you with less HP than you took in the blow. You realize that one more like that, and you are done for. The tension is instantly heightened, and you know your character's life is on the line. This can have a big emotional impact on the player... and adds drama to the combat.

Now if you take a game in which any hit can kill you, the players get a little jaded, and the emotional response drains out of the game.

A wound penalty system can be just as cinematic or more so than D&D HPs. Consider Shadowrun. PCs almost never die if they show an iota of caution. Wound systems do not necessarily have higher casualty rates.

The biggest advantage I noticed is the GM can easily make the players sweat without necessarily coming close to actually killing anyone.

The Death Spiral effect is a real potential problem. But it is fundamentally no different than what happens when a party gets unlucky with their savings throws. You can easily death spiral there too. They just require different management tactics on the part of the GM.

 

[TiQuinn]

I find that essay woefully uninsightful.

Frex, yes, levels serve a useful purpose. So what? He doesn't seem to consider there may be other "carrots" that achieve the exact same goal. Nor I have noticed people having trouble pidgeon-holing their classless characters in four or five words.

Just because a mechanic serves a useful purpose does not automatically make it a good mechanic. Most bad mechanics serve useful purposes, too.

Re-inventing the carrot, so to speak, may be more trouble than it's worth, given that the current system works. As ColonelHardison mentioned, the other options are simply different, not necessarily better. I thought Cook's article outlined the advantages of classes, levels and hit points very well.

 

[TiQuinn]

A wound penalty system can be just as cinematic or more so than D&D HPs. Consider Shadowrun. PCs almost never die if they show an iota of caution. Wound systems do not necessarily have higher casualty rates.

The biggest advantage I noticed is the GM can easily make the players sweat without necessarily coming close to actually killing anyone.

The Death Spiral effect is a real potential problem. But it is fundamentally no different than what happens when a party gets unlucky with their savings throws. You can easily death spiral there too. They just require different management tactics on the part of the GM.

Hence the benefit and appeal of variants. But we're not talking about using variants, so much as we're talking about uprooting the standard system and replacing it. I think that's the crux of my argument. Modify the rules for your own game all you want...spell point systems, wound points, whatever. But unless there is a really good reason to replace classes, levels, and hit points, then I think it's best to leave it alone.

I do generally agree that classes, levels, HPs are defining essential characteristics of D&D, and they serve useful purposes. If you ditch any of them it is questionable whether the game is still D&D.

It's also questionable whether D&D would survive as a product if this were the case. Probably the biggest reason against killing the sacred cows.

 

[Kibo]

One HP related problem I've always had is that character fight at 100% effectiveness untill they pass out.

At some point you need to take a little bit of responsability for how you CHOOSE to describe the battle, don't you? Hit points are an abstraction, and in the case of players characters, applied to heros. So yeah when my players get beat down they look a little like John McClaine, and like John McClaine, they whoopasterisk in a fight, and limp around bleeding on everything the rest of the time.

I mean really. If you want high fantasy with brutal realism (odd but ok) just let your players know they get only their first two hp die, and that's it, or maybe they can have their con bonuses as they level. It should be exciting, if short.

Or you can describe the injuries as they come up, try to remember them, and sometimes the characters exceed their natural limitations and trancsend with great die rolls, and in the cases of bad die rolls and great die rolls on the part of their foes, they're victims of circumstance, and previous injuries. I also use persistant spell effects to explain away bad die rolls. And finally we come to circumstance penalties. Feel free, that's why they're there.

_______
For the record, the thread was clearly marked, Psion felt the need to have a good cry, and was quite rightly called on it. Now he's calling another person, who happens to be right, a hypocrite because he thought the thread might be better without pointless b;tching. An interesting point of view to say the least. Next time have a tissue.

 

[Sulimo]

That is probably my biggest gripe with 3e.

I find systems where being wounded degrades your effectiveness are actually much more dramatic.

Many combats in D&D feel more like "hit point resource management" events than dramatic stories. A CR n creature up against a fresh nth level party is going to do no permenant damage 99% of the time against competent play. All there is left to wonder is how much of your resources are expended.

Thats why I've taken some inspiration from RM and have looked at using similar penalties. In RM the following penalities take place:

25% Hits taken - -10
50% Hits taken - -20
75% Hits taken - -30

Rolemaster is a percentile system, so scaling it back for use with 3e would present 2 options. Either -1/-2/-3 or -2/-4/-6.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Re-inventing the carrot, so to speak, may be more trouble than it's worth, given that the current system works. As ColonelHardison mentioned, the other options are simply different, not necessarily better. I thought Cook's article outlined the advantages of classes, levels and hit points very well.

He did a good job pointing out the function of the sacred cows. That is a good starting place. But "advantage" implies that one must consider alternatives, and Monte's alternative are pure straw men, when he even bothers to acknowledge their possible existence.

I guess what rubs me the wrong way about this essay is he has pretty strong "conclusions" that are not logically supported by his main points and his main points are not logically supported by his individual arguments. Other than that it is a good essay.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

At some point you need to take a little bit of responsability for how you CHOOSE to describe the battle, don't you? Hit points are an abstraction, and in the case of players characters, applied to heros. So yeah when my players get beat down they look a little like John McClaine, and like John McClaine, they whoopasterisk in a fight, and limp around bleeding on everything the rest of the time.

I mean really. If you want high fantasy with brutal realism (odd but ok) just let your players know they get only their first two hp die, and that's it, or maybe they can have their con bonuses as they level. It should be exciting, if short.

These two paragraphs are not logically connected, although you seem to think they are.

A wound penalty system can be more deadly or less deadly than the current HP system. Or the same. It is not as difficult to tune as you may think.

It doesn't even necessarily require throwing out the HP system. Ability damage in 3e is already a simple wound penalty system of a sort, in case you hadn't noticed.

Psion's point about a potential death spiral is a good one. OTOH, that can already easily happen in vanilla D&D in high level play because of the high cost of losing initiative or failing a saving throw.

 

[rounser]

Random thoughts...

As a point of reference, too much death spiral and you get the Monopoly end game. Too little and you get the Talisman end game...

 

[Kibo]

And in other comics by Wiley Miller

These two paragraphs are not logically connected, although you seem to think they are.

Oh no, they are. In an abstracted system like that of Hp the DM has the burden to describe things in a sensible, yet dramatic, manner. If he chooses not to, that's no ones fault save the DM's. That's pretty explicitly the point.

Again, if you want gritty realism with high fantasy, there are ways to do it, and short adventures that end at the unlucky end of a lucky sword might have some merit. I personally think "gritty realism" and "high fantasy" go together like eggs and ketchup. But some people like that too.

As for penalties, already provided for. I'd say being light headed from blood loss, and cramping up due to the fatigue of an extended battle is an unfavorable circumstance. The DnD rules already cover that. Again, at the DM's discretion. If you don't want to DM, and would rather pass the job off to a book, well that's why they make solo adventures and computer games isn't it? Don't blame someone abdicating their responsibility on the abscense of rules that already exist. It's stupid.

Personally, I too find the abstraction of Hp cumbersome and unnessecary. But Sulimo's particular critique wasn't as much about the Hp system as much as it was the amount of effort he puts into that particular aspect of DM'ing. Lord knows I'm not perfect, but I don't go projecting my short commings on books.

There are things I'd like to see exit 3rd edition, one is Hp. And there are others I'd like to see enter a 4th; the inertia of weapons effecting the number of attacks. Hell, in real life I get 4 or more barehanded attacks a round, not so with a great sword.

Of course the best fighting and wounding system I'd ever used was that of leading edge games. Beautiful. Sure it was complicated, but man, once you got used to it, it was blazing fast, increadibly descriptive, precise and lethal. It really took very little effort to GM once you got it running.

Hey next time, maybe you'll even read what I wrote.
_________
And Psion's contribution was initially limited to "I do not approve of this discussion." BFD. Pennywiz was right to call him on it.