Denaes said:
I (and the rest of my group) fully understand the different concepts of DR (now TS) vs HP.
They wouldn't want to play in game where you can hit & crit and still not deal damage - or die/ko in one hit.
The semantics of the DR rule really rub some people off because they feel they're being cheated. It's the way it's described as a solid hit, but just not affecting the target in any damaging way because they saved.
Funnily enough the same people I know don't mind in the least a game where you roll to hit and the defender gets a dodge/defense roll.
It's all in the concept of how you view it in your minds eye.
I see it as basically the same thing just done with a different goal. HP forces a measured decline, preventing both premature deaths and limiting the amount of hits you can take. DS bypasses that measured aspect and declines randomly slower or faster, allowing 1 hit kills or someone to take 10 solid hits before dying.
Interesting. I guess i can see how that would be. Personally, i have exactyl the same complaint againts hit points: you can hit and do "damage" without having any real impact on the target or their future actions. Until you take away that last hit point, of course.
Dragonblade said:
Actually, I think the opposite is true. HP encourage a very cinematic and heroic play style. In other damage systems, players are often reluctant to get into the thick of battle for fear of the penalty or injury that another hit may inflict upon them. In my experience, non-HP systems tend to encourage a more cautious play style.
Players in a hit point system are much more likely to play heroic characters and jump right into the thick of things because a single hit is not as significant or debilitating.
Huh. Hasn't been my experience. IME, piles of hit points that you whittle away but have no other impact only lead to heroic/foolish behavior when the character has tons of them left. Damage save style mechanics, OTOH, either promote this behavior none of the time (if failing is likely) or all of the time (if succeeding is likely).
Also, i think that has more to do with the relationships between damage/HPs and attack/damage save, respectively. IOW, one of the features of a damage save is that certain attackers can't hurt the target. Period. A feature of a HP mechanism is that anyone who can hit the target can hurt the target. Now, which of those encourages what sort of behavior depends on who those attackers are (in the former case) and how many hit points you have (in the latter). I captured D&D character should be worried--once they're tied up and helpless (and thus easily hit), even the kobolds can nickle-and-dime them to death. The captured M&MM super, OTOH, is no more vulnerable to the mooks that couldn't hurt her while standing, because they still can't hurt her. Now, this may not be realistic; but it can promote heroic foolishness.
Now, looking at particular systems, it seems to be that, usually, HP systems give you enough hps that you can safely withstand all but the most devestating of surprise attacks--but, if you can fearlessly wade through the gang of mooks, it's not so much because you have tons of hitpoints as because you can't be hit--which is a separate issue. And, with a 20-auto-hit rule, even that isn't a guarantee. Whereas it's pretty easy in something like M&MM to set up a situation where the mooks are a non-threat. BUt you could also set the threshholds, etc., so that everything/everyone was a threat.
Dragonblade said:
Hit points are not a realistic system by any means. But they encourage a more heroic play style by removing the need for excessive caution regarding character mortality. I simply prefer that for superhero role-playing. If I want to play in a grim and gritty setting where any orc with a knife is a threat, I'll play Warhammer or something.
Again, i say that has to do with magnitude, not style. B5 D20 uses hit points--not even a wound/vitality split--to produce a setting where any orc with a knife is a therat. And, IME, what leads to foolish, er, i mean, heroic, behavior by players is not a huge cushion of hitpoints, but the inability to be hurt in the first place. Either from huge AC/defense scores, or from something like a high damage save that guarantees they won't get hurt if hit.
Dragonblade said:
Oh I have no problem with the Toughness Save system in general. I'm not anti-Toughness save, just pro hitpoints when it comes to superhero games. Your right that the Toughness save doesn't unduly penalize the players. If it did, then I would be more against it. The thing I dislike about the Toughness Save is the randomness. It makes it harder for me to judge the lethality of and difficulty of an encounter when a single roll can potentially take out the villain or a PC.
Well, this is an artifact not of damage saves, per se, but of a wide, flat randomizer. If the d20 were more predictable, it would be less of an issue. If the range of the die didn't equal or dwarf the differences in ability, it wouldn't be an issue. Allow me to suggest mid20: roll 3d20, and toss the low and high die. Gives you a full 1-20 range, but a noticably more-centered result. Really cuts down on extreme results.
Dragonblade said:
Hit point systems are also a useful guage for the DM to judge the remaining life of a PC and allows the DM to better adjudicate challenges that won't kill a PC. The Toughness Save system is much more random and its actually much harder for a DM to control the lethality of an encounter.
Dragonblade said:
When I DM I want to be able to say with a degree of certainty that a battle with a major villain will likely take X rounds and the PCs will all be Y HP away from death. I don't just arbitrarily want to determine the result because thats no fun for the players. I want some randomness and if the players get on a hot streak with the dice, I want them to be able to enjoy it. But I don't like systems where a single failed roll takes you out of the combat. And yes, I know its designed to work with hero points and thats fine. I just think hitpoints work better for the degree of control that I want over combat.
Wow, i'm genuinely impressed. I'm pleased when the conflict goes the way i'd hoped--the PCs triumphing or being defeated/retreating--and i don't have to fudge to get it there. It had never occurred to me to even
try and guage how quickly, or by what margin, much less that it might be possible. And that's using the apparently-predictable hit point system, and mid20.
On single rolls removing players: i sort of agree. But, on the other hand, the only thing that causes players to do anything *but* wade in swinging seems to be the threat of one-roll failure. Think about how your players react to combat vs. a potential trap on a door (which could paralyze or otherwise incapacitate with a single failed save). I don't object to the former, but i'd like to see some of the latter from time to time. Or, IOW, i don't actually
want a player to have to sit out for any real length of time because their character is incapacitated, but i
do want the
threat of that happening, because it's the threat that gets the players to get emotionally invested in their characters. Or, at least, that's my experience. Now, obviously, if you have a plausible threat, you'll occasionally have the negative result of making good on that threat. I don't know any good way to balance those two, but a properly-balanced damage save comes close. In trying to avoid the negative, i think hit points generally also give up any chance at the positive.
