Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Embracing Hit Points as Fatigue
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Ainamacar" data-source="post: 6102493" data-attributes="member: 70709"><p>A potentially novel twist on these kinds of systems entered my head earlier this week. Rather than define fixed quantities of fatigue or wound points that can be lost, let this abstract damage accumulate until either the attacker or defender wants to try and turn a particular attack into a wound or similar condition. The target makes a "resistance check" to determine what happens. The more damage present when resolving the change the more serious the wound is, or the more likely death/dying from this particular attack. When that has been resolved the damage returns to 0, but of course starts accumulating again. In short, abstract "damage" is really about one's circumstances and susceptibility to devastating attacks, but after a while that role is handed over to a wound with a more specific effect.</p><p></p><p>I think it could work something like this:</p><p>1. An attacker has the option of declaring an attack to be a "telling blow" before it is made, which forces the target to make a resistance check if the attack succeeds.</p><p>2. The target has the option of making a resistance check on any other attack while the attack is being resolved. However, voluntary resistance checks impose a penalty on future resistance checks until the end of the day/adventure/whatever.</p><p></p><p>The outcome of a single resistance check might look something like this:</p><p>1. Critical failure. Target takes a long-term wound and is out of the fight. Target is either dead or dying (choice of instigator, i.e. whoever decided there would be a resistance check.)</p><p>2. Failure. Target takes a long-term wound *or* is out of the fight (choice of instigator). Dying.</p><p>3. Various levels of success. Various non-lethal wounds, from long-term to those which can be shaken off in a few rounds.</p><p>4. Critical success. Avoid a wound altogether?</p><p></p><p>For this to work in any way smoothly I think that resistance checks should be relatively infrequent, and this should be reflected in the incentives given to characters.</p><p>1. For attackers declaring a telling blow gives greater control on the timing and precise effect of wounds, but risks that the attack may not do enough damage to cause a significant wound. Moreover, targets don't accumulate any penalty on resistance checks declared by attackers. In general, attackers should wait until they are fairly confident the target will have a hard time with the check. In any case, this arrangement means there is a tension with the natural desire of an attacker to cause as many wounds as possible as fast as possible.</p><p>2. For targets, the advantage of a voluntary resistance check is that high-quality information about the difficulty and possible outcomes of the check is available. Moreover, by making a resistance check the accumulated damage is reset, which keeps fate out of the hands of the enemy for a little while. The downsides are obviously that one might acquire a negative effect before it is strictly speaking necessary, and also that this reduces one's ability to resist future attacks. This introduces a tension with the natural desire for the target to stick to relatively easy checks. </p><p></p><p>This idea has several interesting properties, in my opinion. First, it doesn't rely on fixed quantities of hp/fatigue/wp to determine outcomes, nor does it use a fixed condition track with some sort of death spiral. Second, death is technically possible on almost any attack (which has its own ups and downs), but because people generally will not declare resistance checks in trivial situations the totally random deaths arising from e.g. a swingy critical hit system are mitigated. Third, both the attacker and defender play a role in determining what attacks are especially significant, but they are asymmetrical in what I hope are interesting ways. Fourth, the in-world impact of attacks is always determined when attacks are being resolved, so there is no need for retconning or "quantum wounds." Fifth, there is no inherent fixed hp budget whether in the form of healing surges or healing spells, which may allow more flexibility with adventure pacing. Sixth, since damage resets to 0 after a resistance check it should be easier to avoid crazy number inflation.</p><p></p><p>Obviously this is just a rough idea. The major issue in my opinion is how to make sure the dynamics of the game are such that creatures actually die rather than accumulating 10 wounds but trucking on until someone rolls a natural 1 on a resistance check. Another is keeping the number of resistance checks fairly low so the game keeps moving but also so that they have meaning when they do occur. Healing would need careful consideration, although I can think of several ways forward. A light and flexible set of wounds would also be necessary. As with other systems that go beyond hp additional interactions with poison, spells, etc. would need consideration. A narrative difficulty may be why only voluntary resistance checks impose cumulative penalties, and what understanding, if any, the character has when the player decides to make a voluntary resistance check. Finally, this system isn't necessarily easy to use compared to "0 hp is bad", and thoughtless use could doom just about any creature.</p><p></p><p>For D&D this is probably too wacky, but I feel like there is some mix of RPG design sensibilities where it might work.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ainamacar, post: 6102493, member: 70709"] A potentially novel twist on these kinds of systems entered my head earlier this week. Rather than define fixed quantities of fatigue or wound points that can be lost, let this abstract damage accumulate until either the attacker or defender wants to try and turn a particular attack into a wound or similar condition. The target makes a "resistance check" to determine what happens. The more damage present when resolving the change the more serious the wound is, or the more likely death/dying from this particular attack. When that has been resolved the damage returns to 0, but of course starts accumulating again. In short, abstract "damage" is really about one's circumstances and susceptibility to devastating attacks, but after a while that role is handed over to a wound with a more specific effect. I think it could work something like this: 1. An attacker has the option of declaring an attack to be a "telling blow" before it is made, which forces the target to make a resistance check if the attack succeeds. 2. The target has the option of making a resistance check on any other attack while the attack is being resolved. However, voluntary resistance checks impose a penalty on future resistance checks until the end of the day/adventure/whatever. The outcome of a single resistance check might look something like this: 1. Critical failure. Target takes a long-term wound and is out of the fight. Target is either dead or dying (choice of instigator, i.e. whoever decided there would be a resistance check.) 2. Failure. Target takes a long-term wound *or* is out of the fight (choice of instigator). Dying. 3. Various levels of success. Various non-lethal wounds, from long-term to those which can be shaken off in a few rounds. 4. Critical success. Avoid a wound altogether? For this to work in any way smoothly I think that resistance checks should be relatively infrequent, and this should be reflected in the incentives given to characters. 1. For attackers declaring a telling blow gives greater control on the timing and precise effect of wounds, but risks that the attack may not do enough damage to cause a significant wound. Moreover, targets don't accumulate any penalty on resistance checks declared by attackers. In general, attackers should wait until they are fairly confident the target will have a hard time with the check. In any case, this arrangement means there is a tension with the natural desire of an attacker to cause as many wounds as possible as fast as possible. 2. For targets, the advantage of a voluntary resistance check is that high-quality information about the difficulty and possible outcomes of the check is available. Moreover, by making a resistance check the accumulated damage is reset, which keeps fate out of the hands of the enemy for a little while. The downsides are obviously that one might acquire a negative effect before it is strictly speaking necessary, and also that this reduces one's ability to resist future attacks. This introduces a tension with the natural desire for the target to stick to relatively easy checks. This idea has several interesting properties, in my opinion. First, it doesn't rely on fixed quantities of hp/fatigue/wp to determine outcomes, nor does it use a fixed condition track with some sort of death spiral. Second, death is technically possible on almost any attack (which has its own ups and downs), but because people generally will not declare resistance checks in trivial situations the totally random deaths arising from e.g. a swingy critical hit system are mitigated. Third, both the attacker and defender play a role in determining what attacks are especially significant, but they are asymmetrical in what I hope are interesting ways. Fourth, the in-world impact of attacks is always determined when attacks are being resolved, so there is no need for retconning or "quantum wounds." Fifth, there is no inherent fixed hp budget whether in the form of healing surges or healing spells, which may allow more flexibility with adventure pacing. Sixth, since damage resets to 0 after a resistance check it should be easier to avoid crazy number inflation. Obviously this is just a rough idea. The major issue in my opinion is how to make sure the dynamics of the game are such that creatures actually die rather than accumulating 10 wounds but trucking on until someone rolls a natural 1 on a resistance check. Another is keeping the number of resistance checks fairly low so the game keeps moving but also so that they have meaning when they do occur. Healing would need careful consideration, although I can think of several ways forward. A light and flexible set of wounds would also be necessary. As with other systems that go beyond hp additional interactions with poison, spells, etc. would need consideration. A narrative difficulty may be why only voluntary resistance checks impose cumulative penalties, and what understanding, if any, the character has when the player decides to make a voluntary resistance check. Finally, this system isn't necessarily easy to use compared to "0 hp is bad", and thoughtless use could doom just about any creature. For D&D this is probably too wacky, but I feel like there is some mix of RPG design sensibilities where it might work. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Embracing Hit Points as Fatigue
Top