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

The commonly cited reason against it is that your character is suddenly useless, but, really? A -1 penalty to attack for a D&D character has about a 50-50 chance of having an effect over a full evening's play. Any player who is unwilling to play with that might be over-reacting a bit.

For me, the role-playing and simulation aspect of injuries makes it a win over the simpler gamist approach of no injuries. If you prefer the more gamist approach (which is probably more the case in D&D players) then the simpler approach is the way to go.
It's less that a -1 penalty makes the character useless, and more that the -1 penalty is a fiddly little modifier that is often not worth tracking. D&D would use the Advantage/Disadvantage system for that sort of thing, except it doesn't apply to any penalty that would be less severe than -4 or so.

After all, is it really worth tracking that -1 and remembering to factor it into every check, if there's only a 50% chance that it will ever matter over the course of the full session?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

5ekyu

Hero
Traditionally, a death spiral will make fighting impossible, such that surrender or fleeing remain the viable options. Without a death spiral, continuing to fight seems like a more hopeful prospect - especially if attack rolls have binary resolution, and you really can hope that you'll hit and they'll miss.
It depends on the mechanics of the spiral.

Most of the spirals i have seen do more than degrade your offense. Many or some affect the stats useful for escape as well. As a matter of fact, i would off the cuff say that its quite often that a movement penalty is an early item on tbe death spiral chain since it shows an impact that limits you but doesnt hit success/fail that much.

If you have a death spiral that only degrades your offense then your position is correct but imx they more often also affect movement a lot and defense often.

Thats why i prefer damage saves - they tend to increase risk and apply brief penalties to actions - but the penalties are quickly transiet in the combat while the risk remains - allowing the choice of "stay at great risk" or "get away" pretty commonly if you can get even one turn of respite - likely thru distraction from ally.
 

pemerton

Legend
I'm convinced a lot of players who want deadly combat in RPGs desire it to permit effective ninja one-strike takedowns, something that hit point systems struggle with.
In 4e, the solution to this is to allow one result of a successful skill check (or perhaps skill challenge) is for a creature/NPC to be "minion-ised", thus becoming vulnerable to a one-strike takedown.
 

Shasarak

Banned
Banned
I cordially dislike the TTB system; it's very simplistic, so I play games that use it, but it just always feels so silly: "I shoot the guy in the head with a shotgun and it has no obvious effect"

That does not sound like a problem with a "TTB" system, that sounds like a problem with your descriptions.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
Traditionally, a death spiral will make fighting impossible
Not necessarily impossible, just a varying degree more difficult. Quite a big difference between these.

Also remember that your foe is in theory going through the same death spiral, assuming you've hit it a few times, meaning the disadvantages are more often than not going to more or less cancel out.

After all, is it really worth tracking that -1 and remembering to factor it into every check, if there's only a 50% chance that it will ever matter over the course of the full session?
Darn right it is, and there's no way you'll ever be tracking it for a full session: you'll either get more hurt or cured up (or both!) long before then.

pemerton said:
In 4e, the solution to this is to allow one result of a successful skill check (or perhaps skill challenge) is for a creature/NPC to be "minion-ised", thus becoming vulnerable to a one-strike takedown.
A less edition-specific way of saying this would put it that careful preparation etc. might allow a single strike to in effect be an assassination attempt, bypassing hit point mechanics if successful and instead provoking some other result - save or die, or just die, or auto-unsoncsious and save or die, or whatever.
 

pemerton

Legend
A less edition-specific way of saying this would put it that careful preparation etc. might allow a single strike to in effect be an assassination attempt, bypassing hit point mechanics if successful and instead provoking some other result - save or die, or just die, or auto-unsoncsious and save or die, or whatever.
The only edition to have rules for this in the way you describe them is 1st ed AD&D with its assassination table. (Which all players can take advantage of, regardless of PC class, if trying to kill a non-magically sleeping person.)

I don't think that either 2nd ed AD&D or 3E has rules for assassination attempts triggering save-or-die consequences.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
The only edition to have rules for this in the way you describe them is 1st ed AD&D with its assassination table. (Which all players can take advantage of, regardless of PC class, if trying to kill a non-magically sleeping person.)

I don't think that either 2nd ed AD&D or 3E has rules for assassination attempts triggering save-or-die consequences.
Using the specific term "assassination", perhaps; but the idea of setting someone up for a one-shot kill, bypassing hit point mechanics in favour of some other unpleasant-to-the-target result, is portable across many games and editions.
 

Not necessarily impossible, just a varying degree more difficult. Quite a big difference between these.

Also remember that your foe is in theory going through the same death spiral, assuming you've hit it a few times, meaning the disadvantages are more often than not going to more or less cancel out.
[...]
Darn right it is, and there's no way you'll ever be tracking it for a full session: you'll either get more hurt or cured up (or both!) long before then.
I think that really depends on the implementation. The death spirals with which I'm more familiar tend to progress more quickly than -1 on a d20 (like -4 on 3d6), such that the first person to get hit is unlikely to get many chances to return fire. I think it's something about chasing verisimilitude, that the sort of designer who really wants to implement wound penalties, is also the sort of designer who wants someone to fall within the first three hits from a sword.

As for myself, I consider it inefficient design if the magnitude of a modifier is small enough that it's unlikely to make a difference over the course of the expected number of rolls.
 

Particle_Man

Explorer
I don't think that either 2nd ed AD&D or 3E has rules for assassination attempts triggering save-or-die consequences.

Well, for 3.5 there is this guy's death attack:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/prestigeClasses/assassin.htm

If the assassin sets it up right, and hits, then it is a fort save or die.

Pathfinder gives that ability out to other classes, including the 20th level rogue, and 10th level ninja and slayer (if they take the right optional ability).

IIRC there was The Last Days of Constantinople (third party), which for some reason gave a ridiculously high CHR (in the high 20's I believe) low-level prostitute the assassin death attack.
 

Starfox

Hero
I actually find hit points just as or even more realistic than the death spiral. People who take significant wounds go into shock and are out of the fight. If you don't go into shock, adrenaline and stress keeps you going at more or less full capacity. Only someone VERY high can continue fighting after suffering a wound that would mechanically impair them, such as the loss of the use of a limb.

There are of course exceptions, people who have gone on fighting when physically impaired. But they are exceptions.
 

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top