Shane Hensley comments on the RPG industry

[D'karr]

It's not broken. It provides a simple, video-game style mechanism for tracking a character's health. Just because it's withstood the test of time, though, that doesn't mean it's achieved a state of perfection. Like I said, it needs fine-tuning. I like d20 plenty, but hit points are a flawed artifact of 1e D&D's combat system that went overlooked during the big overhaul that WotC performed converting the system to 3e.

With as many people as playtested 3e I seriously doubt it was "overlooked". Seems like it does well what it is supposed to do; simulate combat in an abstract manner. Trying to achieve "perfection" in a game that uses an abstract combat system is an extraordinarily tall order.

Man o man, I don't mean to get all snarky and jasamcarl-like...

For somebody that doesn't mean to you really do a good job of failing at it.

[snipped all the inconsequential "snarky" remarks]

techniques that only function within the confines of their pristine, perfect little groups.

Techniques that have worked with every single group I've DM'd. Just because you feel like you are not able to do it, doesn't mean they don't work consistently. It is obvious that some people need "rules" for things they can do on their game anyway. You don't have to rule zero any of this. You just have to have an understanding of what you are trying to accomplish and be able to communicate it to your players. Try it, it works. You might also want to take something for your stress, it can lead to high-blood pressure and death.

[snip]
are you naive enough to believe such an arbitrary system is an easy, ideal solution for every group of gamers to implement?

So what you want is a simple (easy) "rules" system from WotC that isn't arbitrary? "Rules" systems are by definition arbitrary. That is what DM's do arbitrate. So tell me again, who is naive?

Perhaps you have an ideal group of gamers [snip some more inconsequential remarks]

Perhaps I do... I'm fortunate in that way.

Putting aside your own infallibility when it comes to assigning all these off-the-cuff effects

Whenever did I claim I was infallible? Man, you sure like putting keys on people's keyboards. Chill out. Paxil might help you.

and your players' sheepish acceptance of those whimsical penalties, do you see where this knee-jerk approach to applying notions of "common sense" to hit points might actually lead to enormous debacles of gaming in the hands of someone less brilliant than yourself?

I'm appreciative of you recognizing that I'm brilliant.

Whoever said there is any sheepish acceptance? I've discussed all these things with my player's. Player's who happen to recognize the fact that I'm not brilliant or infallible. Player's who happen to agree on how we have decided to play the game. Do I forget bonuses or penalties, of course but I don't cry about spilled milk. Do the player's sometimes forget to add a bonus or subtract a penalty from the myriad feats and skills they have? Of course. How is that any different than forgetting to give someone a cover bonus or a penalty for firing into melee combat?

How about all the left-brained DM's out there that are capable storytellers, but have a half-baked grasp of game mechanics (of which there are many)?

What about them? Hit points and AC work the same and just as well for them as they do for me. Actually since they are such capable storytellers they might do a better job of describing cinematic combat than I can. Nobody said they need to adopt the things that I do. But if it was "written" in the rules they would have to do that, wouldn't they? No, they would have the exact same freedom that I do to improvise. Use things you like, change things you don't, add things that make the game more enjoyable.

They would constantly be coming up with sloppy, unfair, and just plain stupid calls on how penalties are assigned, getting players killed routinely. That would tend to sour a players' ability to appreciate the DM's finer qualities, wouldn't it?

But by using the "rules" that WotC gives to them, the rules that are not arbitrary, they would do much better; wouldn't they? What is the problem with adapting the game to your group? What is the problem with ignoring "rules" that don't fit into your game and adopting those that do?

And imagine, for a second, that there's actually a large contingent of players who actually have some standards of their own when it comes to their gaming experience, and believe it ought to be governed by well-thought-out rules, that have undergone at least a bare minimum of playtesting. They might just find this slap-dash approach to a comprehensive damage system to be shoddy, inconsistent, and just plain half-arsed. I do.

Just in case I missed the press release, who appointed you the authority of what is well-thought out, comprehensive, shoddy, inconsistent or half-arsed? You have an opinion... Welcome to the real world, everyone has one or more of those.

Now, if your answer to that is "Then they can find someone else to play with!" or "You shouldn't be a GM if you can't cut it!", then you have undercut your own position.

No, I haven't undercut anything. If you don't like the way the DM makes a ruling do you discuss it with him or do you simply cry to the heavens that he is being inconsistent, shoddy and half-arsed? If you don't like (enjoy) the game that you're playing why play at all? Players that come to play at my table know full well what to expect. There is no mystery to it because like I already mentioned I've discussed it with them. If after knowing what they are getting into they don't like it, they can leave. Or should I put them in a Dungeon and torture them to make them comply?

BTW even the DMG recommends that a DM be able to cut it... It even has a small list of things that he should be prepared to do if he is going to be successful at it.

Getting back onto what this thread is supposed to be about

Finally

--the overall welfare of the RPG industry--it's safe to say that attitude is not one that's healthy for business.

What attitude, if it's not broke don't fix it and if it is fix it yourself? Or your pessimistic, defeatist attitude that if it's not in the rulebook it is by default not playtested, comprehensive, well-thought out and therefore shoddy, inconsistent or half-arsed?

I agree, your attitude is not healthy for business. You want innovation but are unwilling to innovate on your own. It seems like you prefer to be given a set of "rules" that you follow without thought and if anything deviates from that you feel slighted because "THEY" should have had a rule for that.

If d20 or any other system has a gap in rules that ultimately results in the GM having to take up so much slack that it's too much hassle to run, or has shortcomings that frustrate players to the point that they're turned off by the experience, then the game's publishers have fallen short.

Fallen short of what? Your insurmountable expectations?

If the games are providing a "ruleset" that works and most players are having fun, how is that falling short. Seems to me like d20 is in a very health state of business.

Are there things that could be better? Of course.

That is why D&D has been around since the early 1970's and seen several iterations of the game rules. The latest one (3e) being the most comprehensive overhaul. I happen to like the freedom I get from 3E. Guess what, there are still some people that don't like 3e or anything d20. How is that the publisher's problem? The publisher's can't please everyone. Should they try to do so they would fail miserably.

The publisher's try to appeal with their products to the widest market possible. Someone will always be displeased.

That's what happened with my group's foray into Deadlands d20. You can play the elitist all you want blame the GM and players for not being up to snuff, but ultimately the publisher is the one who suffers when Deadlands fails to succeed in the market due to its inability to meet consumer expectations.

Maybe your consumer expectations. From what Shane has said it sold well. So again, how is that a failure?

I don't blame the GM if in your opinion yourDeadlands experience sucked. However, the GM is responsible for the pace of the game and the challenges and the overall story. If he didn't appeal to the widest audience (the game group) then he failed.

Do you blame 20th Century Fox if in your opinion Attack of the Clones sucked? Do you blame the cgi guys that animated Yoda? Do you blame the actors or the extras? No, you blame the creative force behind it, Lucas. People always put the blame on the director. A DM/GM is exactly that - a game's director.

An RPG is an open ended environment for entertainment. The DM has a loose framework (ruleset) that he builds upon but the creative process is his. If a game is not fun then the DM failed he can't really blame it on the "rules". However, if the expectations of the game group are unrealistic their game has a great chance of being "unfun".

Yeah, I had a groovy group like that once too, but don't take it for granted that what works within your microcosm is applicable to 90% of the gamers out there.

I'm sorry for your loss.

Most people can agree on basics, but once they're into the specifics--like how to decide whether a character dodged an arrow, or was struck in the arm--then the disparity of views to begins to tell.

And once again, who is responsible for deciding if a PC dodged an arrow or was struck? The DM. He assigns damage caused by the creatures, how he describes it is up to him. In cinematic combat the DM is specially responsible for this.

Frankly, I find it quite disturbing to think that there might still be some game designer pursuing the remnants of this thread who might stumble across your comments and take that lofty nonsense about "the follies of a GM" seriously. The rulebook serves as a toolkit for the DM.

[snipped some more inflammatory crap]
They need the best tools that they can get their hands on. The fact remains that hit points are not a great tool for creating dramatic, cinematic combat encounters. Even you don't dispute that statement so much as insist that a good DM should just ditch his tools and drive in the screws with his teeth

No, what is disturbing is gamers that have to be spoon-fed everything.

What you are complaining about can be covered in 1-2 paragraphs with a good explanation of the abstract combat system of d20 and how to challenge your players.

I agree that HP's are not the "optimal" wound system for cinematic combat. In the d20 game system HP's are used to simulate actual wounds as well as fatigue, scrapes, near misses and multiple things that slowly tire you out and make you more vulnerable to "real" damage. They have always been like that. Maybe if instead of calling them "HIT" points they were called something else people would understand that they have nothing to do with being actually hit. HP were never designed for cinematic combat. Can they be made to simulate cinematic combat? Absolutely.

What you seem to want is for publisher's to cater to your tastes. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. However, that is not always feasible unless you decide to publish what you want yourself.

However I prefer not to wait for an indefinite time for someone to hand me (publish) a new "ruleset" that addresses this perceived flaw. Now that would be naive.

If you feel like spouting your sarcastic remarks at me how about doing it by e-mail. I'd prefer for this thread to stay open since it is quite interesting.

[Edit] See I had to edit my brilliance and infallibility notwithstanding.

 

[Thorin Stoutfoot]

Interesting perspective. Let's do a field study. When you get a chance, run out to your local hobby shop and find how many published d20 products you can find that provide 15th-level parties with 1HD opponents to fight. Let's keep everyone posted on the results. I'm sure we'll find it enlightening how many dummies are making a living scaling every opponent in every encounter to the party's level.

Queen of Lies: 11th level module. First major encounter has a troop of bug bears (CR 2), female drow (CR 3), dinosaurs (CR 3), backed up by relatively low level cleric and wizard.

The encounter is TOUGH! Hard. The players barely survived by the skin of their teeth.

It was cool. The players wanted to get at the Cleric and Wizard, but with all the troops they had with their disposal, they actually began to fear bug bears. The fighter finally got good use out of her Great Cleave feat.

 

[Celtavian]

Re

The hit point system is a very viable model for simulating fantastic combat. A DM must simply be creative when determining damage.

A roll to hit does not necessarily mean you were directly hit. It even states in the PHB that part of hit points is one's ability to dodge or take blows more effectively. AC is avoiding blows all together, which completely mitigates damage.

I liken it a to a boxing match. There are many blows that hit, but not all blows land a hit hard enough to really injure the opponent. In fact, many of the blows in boxing are simply done to set up knock-out attacks or wear the opponent down.

That is the essence of hit points. Alot of blows are exchanged, some miss entirely, some land but are shaken off by the opponent, some land hard and seriously injure the opponent (Crits), and when the opponent is on his last legs, all it takes is a few solid blows to finish him or her off.

The hit point system does a reasonably fair job of showing the slow process of two opponents wearing each other down. It doesn't handly all situations well, such as the classic example of jumping off a cliff, but if your players do such things in a RPG, then find a new group.

The hit point model allows a heroic fantasy warrior to be heroic without dying to the first wizard or dragon he or she meets. In GURPS, you are going to die quickly to such beasts and wizards rule, especially if you allow the 100 point Super magic advantage where they can exceed the normal damage caps.

On a last note, I would never use the hit point system for a modern campaign with guns. Guns are an entirely different form of combat that require a different model to simulate. This is my opinion because I run all my modern campaign's using the GURPS system. GURPS is the best system for modern campaigns. It really catches the gritty, dangerous reality of gun combat and their martial arts system is second to none. (except for the arm lock maneuver.)

Even given my preferences, each person will use the system they feel best suits their style of play. Some folks like gritty fantasy and some folks like four-color modern campaigns. It's up to the DM and his or her players to figure which fits the group and game world best.

Just remember, none of this is reality, so comparing simulated combat systems based on real world combat is a moot point. There have been folks who have survived countless "you should have died" events, while some die to the lightest of wounds. Combat is a strange situation that one can never really determine an obvious outcome.

Ultimately, it's up to you as a DM to throw strange events into your combats to give them flavor no matter what system you use. You are the luck, fate, or divine guidance of your campaign world, if you exercise that power on occasion to liven up a combat or two, more power to you. It's your job to make combat fun, and not just wipe your PC's or the villains out because someone made a bad roll or only has so many hit points.

 

[spacecrime.com]

This appears to be such a small business that people only want to invest in what sells.

I'm coming in late to the discussion and am probably being redundant, but I just had to note that there is no business that is so large that it wants to invest that stuff that doesn't sell.

(Okay, maybe Enron. But that's about it.)

As far as the "money from hot product doesn't float all boats" argument, this is mostly true -- and the reasons why it is true should be pretty obvious.

I'm making a lot of money on Wizkids right now. The demand pretty much exceeds my ability to fill it -- I could invest every dollar I have in Wizkids product and turn it all back into money within a short period of time. I also have demand for other products, but that's largely filled with my existing stock and a modest budget for new product.

If I've got a lot of money to spend, where should I spend it? On products that have a lot of immediate demand and turn quickly? Or on products where the demand is stable and largely filled by my current investment? Why should I "spread the money around" to slow-moving products when I can make more money faster on the hot product?

There are limits to this approach, of course. Wizkids won't be hot forever, so some of the money we make from them has to go into developing new product lines. However, most of the money needs to go into making the most of the hot product while it is hot.

cheers,

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Of all the systems I've played over the last 17 years D&D's HP system works the best.

 

[SSquirrel]

Falling damage

Yes, it's rule 0. So what? I never said the hit point model was perfect. I said that it works. And personally, I've never seen anyone purposefully jump off a cliff in the knowledge that they'll survive a fall. I've seen lots of characters fall into pits or have their fly spells dispelled, but that's different.

My friend was running a bit of a playtest adventure for us one time and he gave us some characters to play. I had a 10th lvl *I think* Dwarf who was a few levels of fighter aqand several levels of cleric, don't rememebr the exact blend. I pictured him as a very devout warrior and played him as such.

When we were attacked by these undead things while we were on this massive ship *sides were about 300' high* and I attacked one and rolled a 1, Chris determined that my axe went flying from my hands out the hole in the side of the boat.

Now this guy was ALL about his axe, complete specialist, was a pretty wicked magic axe, ,etc. He saw his axe go flying out the hole in the boat toward the water and my first response for him was "Noooooooooo!!!!" and diving out the hole after it.

We tied up a little miniature we found that looked like him and occasionally lowered it as I fell cuz others in the group were fighting. While this was going on I was busy looking up the rules for falling damage for Chris and during my fall discovered I couldn't die from the damage. I ahd already cast Resist Elements:Water *since that is what I would be impacting with* and I think a Bless or something else for bonus hit points. This made the falling damage non lethal and then he rolled badly anyway, so I made it out pretty much ok.

Knowing what I know now I would definitely do it again and not fear for my character's life, but for the first several minutes of his falling, I was completely sweating it and it was good. I don't think good in character reasons for doing dumb things is what Hong was talking about really, but it's a funny story and I thought it fit nicely

 

[Felon]

Well, the boards have finally managed to stay up long enough for me to find this old thread. Glad to see all the bickering continued just fine without me

Only one comment here that I feel compelled to reply to, and for what it's worth I'll take a stab at being more diplomatic in my response:

never said the hit point model was perfect. I said that it works.

OK, it's not perfect but it works. It's serviceable. It's adequate. It has redeeming features.

So why do you seem to feel compelled to gainsay--at every possible opportunity, in any given thread on this messageboard, and with fervent obstinance--the remarks of people who are basically saying that exact same thing? If you're willing to admit that it's imperfect, why do you try to shoot down any attempt at criticizing the HP system? You accept its imperfections, but some folks feel the imperfections are, in certain situations, glaring enough to warrant fine-tuning. You say "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". Others say, "If it can work better, can't we at least discuss improving upon it?"

 

[jasamcarl]

Well, the boards have finally managed to stay up long enough for me to find this old thread. Glad to see all the bickering continued just fine without me

Only one comment here that I feel compelled to reply to, and for what it's worth I'll take a stab at being more diplomatic in my response:



OK, it's not perfect but it works. It's serviceable. It's adequate. It has redeeming features.

So why do you seem to feel compelled to gainsay--at every possible opportunity, in any given thread on this messageboard, and with fervent obstinance--the remarks of people who are basically saying that exact same thing? If you're willing to admit that it's imperfect, why do you try to shoot down any attempt at criticizing the HP system? You accept its imperfections, but some folks feel the imperfections are, in certain situations, glaring enough to warrant fine-tuning. You say "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". Others say, "If it can work better, can't we at least discuss improving upon it?"

Uh, no. What hong has been saying, and i agree, is that the examples given for how the hp system is broken have come from a poor understanding of what they represent. There may be weaknesses (though i think the system is pretty much perfect from both a gamist and simulationist perspective), but noone here has articulated what they are in any lucid fashion.

 

[CCamfield]

Well, maybe it's nitpicking, but if hit points are more than physical toughness, why don't the HPs which aren't physical toughness return faster? Take two characters, one 1st level and one 10th, and reduce them both to 1 hit point. The one who's 10th will take a lot longer to completely heal from the injury. Yes, granted, they're also a lot tougher than the 1st level character, but the treatment of natural healing still feels to me like HPs=physical only.

 

[hong]

Well, maybe it's nitpicking, but if hit points are more than physical toughness, why don't the HPs which aren't physical toughness return faster? Take two characters, one 1st level and one 10th, and reduce them both to 1 hit point. The one who's 10th will take a lot longer to completely heal from the injury. Yes, granted, they're also a lot tougher than the 1st level character, but the treatment of natural healing still feels to me like HPs=physical only.

That was in 1E and 2E. In 3E, you recover hit points at the rate of 1 per level per day, so the 10th level character will also recover 10 times faster than the 1st level one.

This is a first-order correction, which allows for characters of varying levels to recover hit points at an equivalent rate. The _second-order_ correction, which would allow for characters of varying _classes_, isn't built in yet, and that remains a wart. For example, a 10th level fighter with 100 hp will take twice as long to recover as a 10th level wizard with 50 hp. But that's something I'm willing to live with; in any case, healing magic typically makes these factors irrelevant in the case of high-level characters.