Health Should Be Replaced With Fatigue?

[Water Bob]

I think the systems that have too severe penalties fail, not necessarily what I'm talking about.

Do away with hit point all together. No book keeping. Combat is hit...block....miss...hit...parry... Then, occassionally, when a certain high roll is made (akin to a natural 20 on the d20, say 5% of the time) a small wound is inflicted--like arm bruised, and can't use shield arm for three rounds. Or to make it even more simple and remove bookeeping on that, have a penalty. -3 to AC for the next round, then -2 AC, then -1 AC, then arm is OK.

Throw in an easy way to do head butts, elbows, punches, kicks and that sort of thing, and we're cooking with grease.

You're not removing hit points each round. In fact, most rounds end with the defender blocking the blow or dodging out of the way. Of course, NPCs (some) won't be as good at this as PCs.

Combatants are looking for that one stroke that is going to end the fight.

 

[Argyle King]

So, contrary to increasing the fun, death spiral mechanics often decrease the fun for most players.
.

I think that is going to highly depend upon the player. You did somewhat mention that in your post (the one I'm quoting,) but I wanted to point it out again. There are many people (myself included) who enjoy having damage actually mean something. I'd say such systems decrease fun for some players, but I wouldn't necessarily say "most" players.

That being said, I do very much agree that it wouldn't make a lot of sense to implement such a system into D&D. I feel that way because D&D is built in such a way that -I feel- treating HP strictly as physical damage doesn't mesh very well with the rest of the system. Likewise, it doesn't mesh well with some of the other assumptions and abstractions that D&D tends to make. Instead of trying to force such a system into D&D, it makes more sense to me to play a different game if you want a different game.

Personally; as I've already said, I enjoy having damage mean something to a character's ability to fight. There are many reasons why, but one which comes to mind for me often is that (imo) it adds consequence to combat. A byproduct of those increase consequences are that other avenues of problem solving become more viable. I love combat as much as the next person, and I do enjoy battle scenes in games, but sometimes it's nice to know that whacking away at a bag of HP & XP isn't always the right answer to every problem. It's also nice -as a player- to feel as though the points you put into learning a new language or the points spent to learn a skill weren't wasted because the game assumes you'll just kill everything.

I also find that such a system does add a dramatic element. The heroes winning at the end of the day despite being beaten and broken is a staple in many stories. While there are also stories in which the hero seems barely phased by anything and defeats the enemy simply due to having more ability to absorb damage, I personally find them less interesting. That's not to say I don't sometimes enjoy playing impervious characters; at times I have, but it's nice to have other choices as well. It's also nice to be able to look at combat as combat and injury as injury rather than a strict equation of numbers. I remember a D&D encounter I had once in which I was taking damage, but the enemy was taking more; without any changes being made to our fighting ability, it was obvious I would outlast the enemy.

Having tactics and strategy matter is a nice side effect I've noticed in games where combat is giving a bit more grit and detail too. Fighting as a unit and as a team is something which tends to be encouraged when you can't just hack through everything solo with no fear because you either a) have enough HP to outlast everything or b) facing doesn't matter, so it doesn't matter if you get surrounded. Do I think it's cool and heroic to charge into the enemy guns-a-blazing? Yes, I most certainly do. However, I also feel that fighting smart should product results which are generally consistent. I want cool stunts and moves to be available, but it's nice to know that tactic decisions can also matter. ...I started branch off into talking about facing and some other things there, but those things do also tie into HP being less abstract; you can mitigate the idea of a "death spiral" being a certain thing by working as a group. In games which are generally meant to be played with multiple players, I see that as a good thing.

I've recently started reading HackMaster Basic. There are what I feel some excellently worded bits of advice provided in it. I think they are relevant to what I am saying here, but I don't want to quote someone's product without permission. It's a fee product, so readily available to anyone interested in seeing something which has a different mindset behind it than the modern versions of D&D. http://www.kenzerco.com/hackmaster/

To answer the OP, I can only echo what many others have said. There are games which have something similar to what you are suggesting. For example, the other game I primarily play (other than D&D) is GURPS 4th Edition. In GURPS, your ability to fight can be hindered by damage and injury. GURPS also has both HP (hit points) and FP (fatigue points.) One measures your body's ability to take damage; the other measures fatigue. You can spend fatigue to put some extra oomph into an attack; make a feverish last ditch effort to defend against something; keep running during a long chase, and many other things. The default magic system also uses FP as a way to power spells -something which makes sense to me since nearly every game (including D&D,) novel, and movie I'm familiar with tends to emphasize how difficult and tiring it is to master magic.

It's important to also note that GURPS also has active defenses. While taking damage has a much more physical element to it than losing HP in D&D does, the game (GURPS) also does not assume you will get hit in the same way that D&D does. You can try to dodge out of the way; parry with a weapon, and/or block with a shield. You don't get hit simply because the other person rolled better than your AC. I believe this difference is important because I also believe that a system which had a "death spiral" in combination with abstract defenses would tend to lead to the lesser amount of fun mentioned in the post I quoted. I believe that because I feel (from a player's perspective) it wouldn't be fun to have my ability to fight hindered by damage without having an active way to avoid that. Though, that is a personal view; I would never suggest my view is the right one or the most common one. Much like HackMaster Basic, GURPS Lite is also free and allows you to see the basics behind how the game works. http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/lite/

 

[Mishihari Lord]

So, contrary to increasing the fun, death spiral mechanics often decrease the fun for most players.

Well, I dunno about "most." I for one greatly prefer death spiral mechanics to hit points, and I know plenty of others who do too.

The biggest problem I've seen with death spiral mechanics is people who try to use them with a D&D mindset. In many cases, once you're at a moderate disadvantage, it's time to run away. Since D&D players are very unaccustomed to this, their characters often end up dead at this point.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

I really hate hit points as a game mechanic. However, I don't think I'd ever take them out of D&D. They're too integral to the design, philosophy, history, and player expectations of the game. Nowadays I mostly prefer other games, and this is one big reason. But when I play D&D I want hit points.

 

[Randalthor]

I'm suggesting that combat might be more fun is damage happened in stages and included stuns and things like a bruised hand that has some light penalty associated with it for a few rounds. A cut that bleeds, trickling 1 hp of damage each round.

You should check out Rolemaster, it is like this. You have Hits (like Hit Points, only not copyright infringy), but most likely you will not die from the loss of hits, but by a critical: the specific injury caused by the successful attack, like puncture to a lung with bleeding and death from suffocation in X-rounds, oh, and you are at X-negatives to all actions.

1. It's simple.
2. <Deleted>
3. It's familiar.
4. It "works."

* (And my own emphasis.)

*My own belief of why the Hit Point mechanic is still more popular. All of that plus the "success" desire of most gamers (and I fall prey to this, as well, at times): Feeling the need to "succeed" - and "hitting" is a success, even if it really isn't because it most-likely didn't do anything real, because it feels like a success.

My little gaming Public Service Announcement:

Fade In: Just about any gaming table, anywhere.

Two gamers (use your own imagination here, please) sit at a dining room table, which is covered in a large map dotted with figurines, character sheets, dice, and soda cans - both full and empties.

Ragnar: "Ooh! I did 8-points of "damage", how many more before the guy drops?"
GM: Uuuh.. (not that your character would know this, but....).. 24.
Ragnar: Hhmm. That seems weird. I have to "hit" this little, elf-dude around 4 times with my two-handed axe to drop him. And he doesn't feel a thing until then, huh?
GM: Nope, he is just fine until he is unconscious on the way to death.

Voice Over (Morgan Freeman - of course): Words mean stuff.

Ding, ding...ding...diinnnggg. The more you know.

 

[Argyle King]

Well, I dunno about "most." I for one greatly prefer death spiral mechanics to hit points, and I know plenty of others who do too.

The biggest problem I've seen with death spiral mechanics is people who try to use them with a D&D mindset. In many cases, once you're at a moderate disadvantage, it's time to run away. Since D&D players are very unaccustomed to this, their characters often end up dead at this point.

I agree.

Fighting clear to the last HP tends to be a common tactic in D&D. A lot of D&D tactics don't really make sense in games which aren't D&D, and many will easily get you killed in other games. I think it's important for a GM to be on the same page when it comes to expectations of lethality before starting a game. It also needs to go both ways; it helps if the GM also plays the antagonists like creatures who want to survive. Obviously there are going to be exceptions such as crazed cultists willing to die for a cause; mindless undead, and various other things, but they should be the exception and not the rule.

 

[Ketherian]

I play (and run) HarnMaster - so the lack of HP/use of fatigue makes sense to me.
When I play (or run) D&D (or a varient), however - such a mechanic doesn't work on its own.

As other posters have commented, this mechanic requires more than just a 1:1 replacement of hp for fatigue. Armor and combat maneuvers (dodge, parry, block, and counter-strike -- to use HarnMaster terminology) suddenly take on a greater importance when dealing with fatiguing combat.

In my game rendering an enemy stumbling-stupid (ie: unable to do much but stumble about and pant) is almost as good as a KO, which is almost as good as killing them.

How much of this is system and how much of it is description and motivation? In a system of fatigue, it's a touch harder to describe everything in "points"; but I still hear players say - "He's at x fatigue levels! He'll have to go down soon."

I like the descriptive effects of combat in HarnMaster (describing the strike and its location instead of "points of damage"). But then again I've met a GM that provided the same descriptions for strikes in D&D. So, I guess this effect is really system-generic.

 

[Ahnehnois]

"Death spiral" is one of those weird bits of jargon that has somehow acquired a negative connotation.

One might more simply refer to the concept as "attrition". And indeed, attrition is one of two basic ways to win a battle, the other being a single decisive strike (which also has acquired a bizarrely negative connotation in the form of SoD).

I've yet to see any real evidence that "death spirals" are bad or that players dislike them. If anything, the clearest and most universal drive I've ever seen has been to the effect that the game should feel more real.

 

[Randalthor]

While I agree that "Death Spiral" and one-shot-one-kill have taken on negative connotations, I don't agree that there is a universal drive for more "real" games*. There are plenty of people out there who are not only fine with the Hit Point model of gaming, they much prefer it, as well as all of those "new school" games which are about simple, simple, simple rules and to be more real, simple is not how it is done. (Of course, how real determines the amount of complication...) The reason I say this is that I have a hard time trying to get players for games other than D&D, Pathfinder, or other more abstract combat-rule games is very, very hard. It seems as though everyone wants to play those games in which "success"** is easy and death of the character pretty-hard, at least in the insta-kill scenario. (If you have noticed, the trend in tricks & traps is away from the "failed save = death" in AD&D 1E, to where avoiding the trap is more reliant upon the Player's actions/intelligence/knowledge and not the characters, as is the norm now.)


*Though I am both among those that do strive for more "real" games, and that I prefer death spirals to more abstract systems, such as Hit Points.


**Refer to my earlier post and the section about "success" in D&D.