Tink-Tink-Boom vs. the Death Spiral: The Damage Mechanic in RPGs

Broadly speaking, every traditional role-playing game has some sort of system for tracking the health and well-being of its characters. Classically, as in Dungeons & Dragons, these are expressed as Hit Points. Other systems such as Savage Worlds or Vampire: The Masquerade use some sort of qualitative wound mechanic. For the purposes of this article, which will compare the relative merits of each approach, we’ll call the former approach Tink-Tink-Boom (or TTB for short) and the latter the Death Spiral.

Broadly speaking, every traditional role-playing game has some sort of system for tracking the health and well-being of its characters. Classically, as in Dungeons & Dragons, these are expressed as Hit Points. Other systems such as Savage Worlds or Vampire: The Masquerade use some sort of qualitative wound mechanic. For the purposes of this article, which will compare the relative merits of each approach, we’ll call the former approach Tink-Tink-Boom (or TTB for short) and the latter the Death Spiral.



Regardless of the particular gloss, all systems with a damage mechanic fall into one of two categories: an attritional model (TTB) where you are fine until you aren’t (either falling unconscious or dying) or a system of gradual decay (Death Spiral) whereby accumulated wounds seriously impact your ability to function.

The biggest advantage of the TTB approach is simplicity. You (generally) have a bank of Hit Points. Things do damage to you that deplete that bank. When you hit zero Hit Points, you die. Some systems, like those derived from Basic Roleplaying such as Call of Cthulhu or King Arthur Pendragon, introduce a tripwire point that triggers unconsciousness prior to death—if your character takes enough damage to reduce them below that threshold, you simply pass out. Other systems, such as the Palladium Books family of games, Champions, or Dragon Heresy, break Hit Points into two categories representing mere shock or bruises on the one hand and life-threatening injuries on the other. (Often in these systems, characters have far more “shock” points than “vitality” points.)

These elaborations on the basic TTB system were presumably introduced in an effort to add a dash of “realism” to the mechanic, as that is the fundamental downside of the classic Hit Point arrangement: in real life, people who suffer repeated injuries tend to feel the effects well prior to expiring.

And thus the Death Spiral.

Whether as a result of wanting to treat injury more realistically or (somewhat paradoxically) to move the system in a more narratively-focused direction, qualitative wound categories have been around for decades. Early White Wolf games like Ars Magica and Vampire: The Masquerade helped pave the way with their hierarchical wound categories. More recent systems such as Apocalypse World and its many offshoots use variations on this approach as well, albeit often through ticking off boxes or filling in a track on the character sheet.

What these systems all have in common is that, as more boxes are ticked or wound categories are marked off, more and more penalties accrue. Perhaps in a dice pool system you lose dice out of your pool; in a system that relies on single dice rolls, you likely suffer a penalty to your roll. You might also suffer shock effects, lose actions, etc.

The point is: getting wounded slows you down and makes you a less effective fighter. It also tends to speed up your headlong rush towards the final curtain as the penalties accrue—hence the term “death spiral.”

Although there’s much to be said for the increased realism of this approach, it also must be said that it comes with an increased burden of modifiers and conditions to keep in mind. Although this may not weigh too heavily on a player’s shoulders, I can say from personal experience that keeping track of NPC wounds is often an onerous imposition for already-harried GM brains.

What do you say, gentle reader? Is the simplicity of the TTN system not worth the loss of realism? Is the Death Spiral too brutal, or is it grimly satisfying? And is that grim satisfaction worth the extra variables required of the players and GM to track?

On a final, personal note, this will be my last UGC article for EN World. It’s been a lot of fun writing these game theory articles, as well as the Storyteller’s Vault and Statosphere Roundups, and I’m looking forward to continuing to read the excellent output from UGC contributors both present and future!

This article was contributed by David Larkins (sirlarkins) as part of EN World's Columnist (ENWC) program.We are always on the lookout for freelance columnists! If you have a pitch, please contact us!
 

log in or register to remove this ad

What I would like to see is a death spiral which cripples your offensive abilities, but leaves intact your ability to defend yourself and to run like hell. This is not quite as realistic as a traditional death spiral, but it's more realistic than tink-tink-boom, and it encourages injured PCs to look for ways out of combat instead of sticking it out and dying.
That's great, if you want people to either surrender or flee. One of the unintended consequences can be that it encourages enemies to do the same, though, which can create a further burden on the players, and slow down gameplay.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


3catcircus

Adventurer
That's great, if you want people to either surrender or flee. One of the unintended consequences can be that it encourages enemies to do the same, though, which can create a further burden on the players, and slow down gameplay.

I don't see how that could possibly slow down gameplay. Surrender or flee = combat encounter finishes quicker. All too often, GMs have to slog through yet *another* encounter with lots of mooks and minions so that the PCs don't kill off their bad guy too quickly. More importantly, surrendering and/or fleeing provides greater opportunities to add plot hooks or more role-playing. Now, instead of a room full of dead minions, you have enemies to interrogate about the BBEG's plans and you have BBEGs who can come back to threaten the heroes at a later time. Likewise, instead of a TPK, you could have PCs who now need to mount a rescue mission to steal back party members who were knocked out or captured during the fight.

As to the death spiral mechanics themselves, *NOTHING* is better than the rules implemented in the too-short-lived Twilight:2013 game. A "fair" death spiral, realistic-enough consequences resulting from wounds to different body parts, the possibility of going into shock or of bleeding out, and the option to add insta-kill effects to simulate a shot to the head or heart, should it do sufficient damage. And very simple to use - roll to hit (and the same dice roll also determines hit location using an abstracted -arms/legs/head/torso set of locations), apply damage, subtract protection, and compare to one of 4 (or 5) wound thresholds by location to determine the effects.

Simple, elegant, and provides the "feel" of what would likely happen in real life with just enough abstraction to prevent it from being unwieldy.
 

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
Agreed.

There are also systems (and RM/MERP can work out this way) where a character suffers more and more wounds, and so suffers an increasing penalty as a result, but doesn't necessarily die because none of the wounds suffered is fatal.

And Pendragon, at least in its 5th edition version, has a "major wound" mechanic where certain wounds put you out of action but don't kill you, independently of the attrition of lost hit points.

i think a Failure spiral is pretty much the same... DEATH simply being a classic form of failure. And in D&D land not necessarily so final.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
Was that 4e's way of introducing a death spiral in a way with the bloodied condition that has certain effects when it applies?

Arguably it more often in Players triggers comeback moves and desparation style extreme bonuses.

In NPCs it makes them more vulnerable to things including intimidation
 

I don't see how that could possibly slow down gameplay. Surrender or flee = combat encounter finishes quicker.
[...]
More importantly, surrendering and/or fleeing provides greater opportunities to add plot hooks or more role-playing. Now, instead of a room full of dead minions, you have enemies to interrogate about the BBEG's plans and you have BBEGs who can come back to threaten the heroes at a later time.
Good-aligned characters might feel obligated to capture enemies who surrender, and then spend an hour deciding what to do with them instead of just moving on with things. Nothing slows a party down quite like a wagon-train full of prisoners to care for. If the party does need to interrogate someone, they always have the option of taking someone alive if they need to, but having the enemies surrender can force them into that situation even when they don't want to. It can get to the point where the only reasonable solution is to not be a good person.

Less-good characters may feel obligated to chase down anyone who flees, out of the very real fear that one escaped minion could put the entire dungeon on high alert. It's the same reason why you can't just release someone who surrenders - it's a massive security hole in your operation. Chase sequences can also take a lot of time to resolve, though, especially compared to a single round of combat.
Likewise, instead of a TPK, you could have PCs who now need to mount a rescue mission to steal back party members who were knocked out or captured during the fight.
While it might make for an interesting narrative element, you've just sidelined one or more players for a significant period of time. Unless you're meta-game contriving an excuse because the player is going to miss the next session, splitting the party is a sure recipe for someone to become bored.
 



AnimeSniper

Explorer
I think traditional Hit Points (TTB) tends to break-down at high level due to player's suspension of disbelief:
"I have over 100 HPs so I can easily walk off that 300-foot cliff."
"I have over 100 HPs so I can have 20+ arrows sticking out of me like a pin-cushion from that line of archers"

Both systems (TTB and Death spiral) need to make 'exceptions' to their own rules for "mooks" (bad guys who can be taken out by one hit).

Or as in Modern and Future games of the player with 128+ HP and can survive a 1 Megaton Nuclear Warhead detonating at ground zero.... to the face!
 

Hurin70

Adventurer
I don't think that is what death spiral means.

Death spiral is when damage causes a penalty which makes a character less effective. Absent a corresponding penalty to an opponent, failure becomes much more likely. In particular, additional damage becomes much more likely, which will make the character even less effective, and hence we have the death spiral.

Death spiral does not mean that a character, upon receiving damage, is on a timer to die in the immanent future due to ongoing effects of the injury (for example, by bleeding to death).

At least, that is my understanding.

Thx!
TomB

Thanks for explaining that; I do have a better understanding now of what that means.

However, I still feel the original article is being too simplistic in its divisions of systems into one of only two options. Yes, Rolemaster and MERP can have death spirals. But what the original article leaves out is the fact that, in these systems, there is often no 'spiral'; there is just instant death. I have had characters die at full hits from a critical that cut their head off. There's no spiral here; there is just instant death. That doesn't really seem to fit the 'spiral' model to me.
 

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top