I was reading the thread on HarnMaster (a game I've always wanted to try, but haven't), and something struck me. In combat with most rpgs, we track damage, then we try to handwave what that damage really means to the character, since we want our heroes not to be maimed or down healing for a long period of time.
That's not very clear. Let me restate, and take D&D for an example. In combat, when a character is hit, he looses hit points. But, what do these hit points mean? They can't be real serious damage because the character is not affected the way he should be if seriously damaged. So, we reason out what these abstract hit points mean.
Wouldn't it be better, instead, we measured fatigue (in melee combat)? Instead of how much damage a character takes, we measure how tired a character is getting. As the character gets tired, fatigued, he's more likely to get sloppy and actually sustain a wound. Inflicting wounds on your enemy is the ultimate goal of combat, but it should happen rarely (Otherwise, we're rolling up new characters and not having fun way too often.). And, when a wound is achieved, the effect of that wound could be anything from a graze or bruise to broken bones, chopped off limbs, or internal injuries. Wound results in combat would not happen that often to Player Characters (about as often as a D&D character reaching 0 hit points), but when the wound does happen, the results are serious.
Bring armor into the mix: Armor would have a strong impact on combat, making it several times harder to wound an armored target. But, armor also makes the character fatigue faster.
And, I've always thought that melee combat and hand-to-hand combat should not be so separated. In RL, it's common for a melee weapon fight to also include punches and head knocks, bites, grapples, elbows, wrestling, and such. I think that HTH attacks should support a melee fighter.
For ranged combat (be bows and crossbows or pistols and blasters), the combat model should be changed a bit. Faitgue is not the measured factor here. Maybe luck?
I'm just thinking out loud, here.
That's not very clear. Let me restate, and take D&D for an example. In combat, when a character is hit, he looses hit points. But, what do these hit points mean? They can't be real serious damage because the character is not affected the way he should be if seriously damaged. So, we reason out what these abstract hit points mean.
Wouldn't it be better, instead, we measured fatigue (in melee combat)? Instead of how much damage a character takes, we measure how tired a character is getting. As the character gets tired, fatigued, he's more likely to get sloppy and actually sustain a wound. Inflicting wounds on your enemy is the ultimate goal of combat, but it should happen rarely (Otherwise, we're rolling up new characters and not having fun way too often.). And, when a wound is achieved, the effect of that wound could be anything from a graze or bruise to broken bones, chopped off limbs, or internal injuries. Wound results in combat would not happen that often to Player Characters (about as often as a D&D character reaching 0 hit points), but when the wound does happen, the results are serious.
Bring armor into the mix: Armor would have a strong impact on combat, making it several times harder to wound an armored target. But, armor also makes the character fatigue faster.
And, I've always thought that melee combat and hand-to-hand combat should not be so separated. In RL, it's common for a melee weapon fight to also include punches and head knocks, bites, grapples, elbows, wrestling, and such. I think that HTH attacks should support a melee fighter.
For ranged combat (be bows and crossbows or pistols and blasters), the combat model should be changed a bit. Faitgue is not the measured factor here. Maybe luck?
I'm just thinking out loud, here.
