Hitpoint alternatives

>Oh. /dnd/tard.
>Play GURPS
Is this just a meme now?
I'm a different user btw
And I'm not even dnd's biggest fan

Personally I prefer a hybrid system where you have some HP that you can lose, but after that's gone (or after X% of it is gone) you start losing performance per hit (or maybe per hit over X damage).

You'd die or whatever (depending on what kind of game it was you might simply get knocked out or something) after taking a ton of damage or a bunch of the performance penalty injuries, whichever happened first, and magical healing would be much better at dealing with HP damage than those.

Basically, I want a death from a thousand cuts to still be a possibility, and I want people to not take performance penalties for the first half-ish of a fight, but after that they should start getting tired and slowing down.

Actually, my partiality towards stat damage is derived from a homebrew system I've (slowly) been working on. My roommates have agreed to test it when it hits a playable state.

But I'm at the point now where I have to finalize the games basic concepts before continuing, hence my curiosity in the subject of character damage.

I'm gonna go to bed, gotta work early. If there's interest in knowing more I could share some stuff some time tomorrow, otherwise lets keep talking damage and health.

Legends of the Wulin has a fantastic alternative damage system.

All successful attacks inflict Ripples. Ripples don't do anything by themselves, but are an abstract representation of the toll of combat, attrition and exhaustion building up and making things more and more risky.

Particularly successful attacks inflict Rippling Rolls, where Ripples are converted into Conditions that represent actual injuries capable of impeding actions and eventually defeating your opponent.

What makes it really interesting is how it interacts with people who focus on different combat stats. Someone with high accuracy can inflict a lot of Ripples while someone with high direct defences can keep them low, but someone with high Damage (which is added to ripplings rolls) can cripple an opponent with a single lucky hit, while someone with high Toughness (used to resist Rippling Rolls) can keep fighting at full effectiveness through no-selling rippling rolls.

I'm very surprised to see other people liking the idea of becoming weaker as you get more hurt. I thought I was in the tiny minority.

The system I'm designing uses pain and damage to affect character abilities proportionately, but has other metrics for serious or fatal injuries.

The "Death Spiral" effect is extremely cool to me. You become paranoid about not getting hurt, and that means mitigating and avoiding danger realistically. Just don't make recovery too crazy.

I have a weird rigid version of Exalted 3rd damage system that functions much more simply than it does in Ex3rd.

Basically, your health bar cycles, and with each cycle you take either status effects or wounds, up to the attacker.

At base you do one damage, but the better you attack the more damage you do. When damage hits 3, you either choose a status effect (Trip, Disarm etc) or choose to wound the opponent.

If you choose status effect, that comes to effect immediately, and many of them actually help you cause more wounds, doubling social damage for instance.

If you cause wounds, after calculating the wounds, your opponent rolls their Toughness againt the amount of wounds, and if they roll same or under, they're out.

'Out' in this context does not mean dead or even incapacitated. It just means that the player MUST exit combat soon. However that's done (fainting, lying down, even dying) is up to the player, but the only rule is that longer the player takes in exiting, the harsher the consequences are. Like, if you are stabbed to a vital organ, you can keep fighting, but you might just die from it.

I was thinking about a system where damage was almost always incredibly extreme. You'd roll some amount of dice (usually one), and a 6 would kill, a 3-5 would maim (which usually ensured death), and a 1-2 would stagger (which also basically meant you'd die).

They were all dangerous outcomes because combat was done by figuring out the members' relative "tempo", and giving the turn to the greatest tempo. This meant that there was back and forth, each combatant maybe surviving a stagger, but once something was landed a second time, the extra 1-2 attacks with no sure defense would just end it.

I like wound systems like Burning Wheel has. Character has wound thresholds, damage exceeds that and you get a wound. Every wound gives penalties to rolls and are cumulative. They take time to heal from a couple days to months. Simple to use, effective in making the players avoid starting combat as the default option, and as a bonus makes the combat actually less deadly.

I prefer wounds.

ayrt

The 1 HP thing is admittedly in a lot of systems, but dnd is a big offender.

Meanwhile GURPS is the only one off the top of my head that does shock, skill, and stat damage.

Thus, complaints about:

>"I have 1 hitpoint left, lets rock!" situation

Strongly indicate that they don't know GURPS

Hmm, in my homebrew which I described there's functionality damage. I only really started nibbling at the item end of it, rather than the character end, mind.

Dull knives do less damage, dented armor doesn't protect as well. Etc. I was very into making sure things were fractal and reflected each other instead of going out of context.

I'd also be interested in...An adrenalin system? Roll to ignore some stat damage (Strength mostly, Int would keep on going down) Every time you're hit you roll. If you ever fail a roll all the stat damage hits you at once. If you're not attacked for, eh, 3 consecutive turns your Adrenillian stat starts goes down until you can't make your roll any more.

Crits give you a burst of strength.

I can understand that level of health being fun. The 40k role play did that.

Why is the "character" is able to make attacks at 1 HP an issue?

The person piloting the character is going to be cowardly anyway.

The mechanics should reinforce the internal logic of the world.

Sounds like the Star Wars FFG system

>Meanwhile GURPS is the only one off the top of my head that does shock, skill, and stat damage.

Burning Wheel is one that comes to mind as also having wounds with penalties.

Speaking of Burning Wheel, my answer for the thread would be the systems based on it: Mouse Guard and Torchbearer. Instead of individual HP, each side in a conflict (whether it's physical combat, social conflict, or stranger things like chase sequences or banishing spirits) has a pool of disposition points that are split up between the different characters on that side. The different actions reduce the enemy's disposition or strength your own in different ways. When one side is reduced to 0, they lose according to the stakes of the conflict. But the really interesting thing is that if the winning side lost any of their disposition (and they almost certainly will have), they have to make a compromise with the losing side. More lost disposition means a larger compromise.

Obviously it wouldn't work for every game, but it gives some fun results.

But why?

You are spending writer, GM, and player resources to do that.

This is why I am not a fan of mid fight stat allocation, and appreciate that 4e had curse and disease check happen after the encounter were you get them.

>I've taken 4 points of damage, I roll at -2 now
Is that really hard? It's basic math for pretty much any game that does things like that

And how much life do I have left?

And this makes the sudden turnsout mechanics cost more GM and player time.

Or does it make sense that only monsterous creatures can become more enraged and aggressive with their attack once damaged enough, and everything else gets weaker.

>And how much life do I have left?
4 less than before.
>And this makes the sudden turnsout mechanics cost more GM and player time.
Yeah sure, like 2 seconds when your hit, these games tend to be more deadly more often, after all they're trying to be realistic with damage. It's not for everyone or every game sure, but it offers a lot like "Wow, all of a sudden attacking multiple people instead of wailing on one guy until he's dead is a viable tactic"

>Or does it make sense that only monsterous creatures can become more enraged and aggressive with their attack once damaged enough, and everything else gets weaker
Who said anything about big monsters getting stronger?

Doesn't that just mean that HP doesn't really matter if you have dealt enough damage to make it impossible for an opponent to hit you.

Seems like you have just made everyone have a defined lower hp range to be good.

Also, genre convention, and you didn't actually answer my first question.

Giving smartass not answers doesn't get us anywhere.

Since when has DnD used stat damage as the primary damage type?
The only thing I can think of that does is Traveller, at least classic

>Doesn't that just mean that HP doesn't really matter if you have dealt enough damage to make it impossible for an opponent to hit you
Not always, let's take SR for instance, because that's the example I'm more or less using.

You have 10 HP. For every 2 damage you take minus -1 to your rolls. So the most you'll ever have is -4, which means you can still probably hit, but you'll have a much harder time. So your still a threat, but now your less of a threat. It creates a new interplay.

>Seems like you have just made everyone have a defined lower hp range to be good.
No, it's just that these games tend to trade of high HP like DnD where you have hundreds for instead 10-20. Not all of them I'm sure, but a lot, the whole point of these systems is to be realistic.

>you didn't actually answer my first question.
Yes I did, if you take 4 damage, and you at 12, you are now at 8.

>Giving smartass not answers doesn't get us anywhere.
What did I say was smartass? Why do you feel the need to get so defense. I'm trying to explain something after you asked, that's all I'm doing.

The internal logic of D&D is that HP is explicitly an abstract combination of multiple different factors and not just "meat points". You can work out the in-game description of a successful attack roll however you want, but the mechanical outcome is that you're still perfectly healthy (albeit slightly closer to death).

Instead of just changing HP Im changing how combat are played out, mechanically speaking. HP was the means to determine 'health level' and therefore when someone is beat - that is, the fight is over.

>Edge
Sliding scale to indicate who is winning. Reaching either end means that side won the fight. Kill-move or surrender, just knockout even, whatever, the fight ended. Mechanically this is the direct replacement for dealing damage.
>Wounds
Beyond tracking who is winning the fight, we gotta track the consequences, particularly wounds. This along with 'losing Edge' is the replacement for taking damage.
>Escalation
Well, because Edge have no inherent way of pushing for the fight to end, we implement Escalation which mechanically functions by adding an increasing number to swings to Edge.

It's still untested but how does it sound so far?

Maybe do something like Torchbearer, wherein the side to lose all its disposition tokens loses.
The winner gets whatever they wanted at the outset of the conflict (drive off the adventurers, convince the mayor, slay the hobgoblins), but depending on how much disposition the winner lost (how well the loser did bascially), the loser can inflict compromises on the victor (the goblins drive off the adventurers but take many casualties in the process, the mayor is convinced but only for now, the party slays the bugbears, but some of there rations fall into the fire during the fight)

Bloody Finger Points.(BFP)

Basically when your character gets hit you have to finger fuck your asshole for x seconds equal to the damage you took. If those fingers come out bloody your character is dead.

>Monsters should get stronger and gain new abilities when they're half-dead
>because of genre convention
You know pretty much only 4e and video games does that, right? Hell, at least give them a >muh final form if you're gonna do that to give some semblance of reason.

Any "resources" needed to track the most important statistic in the entire game is an investment. In my system this requires very little effort and is still accurate. D&D has an awful system from top to bottom, and their system is too stuck in the past to really improve fundamentally now.

That's a lot of words to say nothing. In every sense of the word, "internal logic" demands actual explanation, not "abstract shit that doesn't make sense". There is no internal logic at all. You can say that's fine, but you don't get to redefine what internal logic means to pretend it has an explanation.

No matter which way you slice it, if your character is almost dead, they shouldn't be fully healthy in their capabilities. D&D's system is built around giving up on solving this problem.

>No matter which way you slice it, if your character is almost dead, they shouldn't be fully healthy in their capabilities.

This assertion is entirely founded upon the notion of 'realism'. Realism is not something every system finds equal value in and needs to address in the same way. If a system has a different set of priorities, it makes perfect sense for your assertion not to apply, or even for the opposite to be true- see Tenra Bansho Zero for a great example. Taking Wounds gives your character bonus dice, trading consequences later for a bonus to combat now, with the Dead Box as the ultimate expression of this. If your Dead Box is clear, nothing in a fight can kill you- They can knock you out and you can lose, but you'll survive it somehow. However, if you tick your dead box, you get a significant boost to all rolls- Putting your characters life on the line for the chance of victory.

Is it realistic? Fuck no. Is it way more appropriate for the themes and style of the game than a death spiral? Absolutely.

Is it time to talk Nechronica? It sounds like it's time to talk Nechronica. In this system, you have four different hit locations: the head, the arms, the torso, and the legs. When you take damage, it will hit one of these locations, and then you have to break a number of parts equal to the damage dealt. Now what's important here is that a part is not merely "one HP". Every part has some mechanical ability tied to it. Your head? That's probably got most of your action points, if it runs out of parts you'll be feeling sluggish way at the bottom of the AP track. Arms? Holds most of your weapons, if they're kaput you're probably low on things to whack with. Torso holds a lot of sundry shit with defensive abilities, and you'll generally be a lot easier to properly damage when the part count hits zero. Legs of course hold a lot of movement parts, so you'll be sitting pretty still when they all break.

It's a really visceral system where you can feel the damage you're taking because of the maneuvers you lose, even if it's only the basic parts everyone starts with. Because if those are gone, your important reinforcement parts are exposed and might be soon to follow.

>Taking Wounds gives your character bonus dice
Damn, that's pretty gar

TBZ also has HP, but it's a count to unconsciousness, not death. Wounds are speed bumps in that, taking damage that could go into HP. (though filling critical wound boxes turns the HP count into a countdown, ticking off HP per turn)

Okay, so either internal logic isn't important to those games, in which case they are stupid, or they establish some explanation that accounts for the backwards mechanics.

My problem is not with unrealistic systems, but with bad explanations. D&D has no good explanation whatsoever; no internal logic. Does this other game you're talking about try to explain why you become more powerful and have control over your ability to die? If not, it's a stupid system that I don't respect.

Again, you're assuming internal logic is only acceptable if it is a tangible, physical thing.

It's a question of priorities and what the system cares about. And some systems care about rule of cool and tending to genre conventions or narrative cliche's more than they care about realism or the laws of physics.

It doesn't make them inconsistent or mean they lack internal logic, it just achieves it in a different way. If that's not to your preferences it's perfectly fine, but it's no less valid a basis for a system.

Metaphysics are good enough for me. D&D doesn't even bother with that. "Rule of cool" and tropes AREN'T internal logic, it's a proud declaration that they DON'T CARE ABOUT LOGIC. They are illogical systems with other priorities, as you said. So please, get it through your head: I care about internal logic and I don't respect systems without it.

If you think illogical systems that prioritize "rule of cool" is better, then I guess we disagree, huh? These systems no doubt work on their own terms and are therefore "valid", but I will still say they're stupid compared to a game with good internal logic.

(Stupid can also be fun, as with many non-RPG tabletop games where you might move around a shoe or a top hat as your avatar and collect money for passing "Go!" However, I don't respect that in an RPG.)

>So please, get it through your head: I care about internal logic and I don't respect systems without it
But he's saying it's not the only thing and people like other things too, just get over yourself

I don't subscribe to the philosophy that just because other people have other opinions, I need to put disclaimers around mine. I say they are stupid, and you can deduce that it's my opinion or assertion without being a sensitive baby about it.

>"Rule of cool" and tropes AREN'T internal logic, it's a proud declaration that they DON'T CARE ABOUT LOGIC.

Can you support this assertion? Because it seems completely arbitrary to me.

A system and setting defines its own internal logic, and metaphysics or technobabble is just window dressing. Every mecha setting has, as an implicit assumption of the setting, 'Mechs are functional and effective combat assets', and no amount of explaining will make that fundamental assertion any more realistic or less 'illogical' by real world terms. But that doesn't matter. If a setting states something to be the case, that is so, and is a part of the worlds internal logic. It's also possible to fuck up, if a system ends up with contradictory statements to that effect and a setting that doesn't make sense, but rule of cool and genre conventions can be parts of a settings internal logic.

'Heroes keep fighting at full strength until they go down', as an assumed and implicit part of a setting, is logical. It's the way things work in that world, so why wouldn't it be? If you end up criticizing the premise of the setting itself, you're just missing the point.

Vitaity and wound points. Also used for star wars d20 as their base system, there's an unearthed arcana article for them in 5e

...

Yeah, but have you ever thought that no one cares what you think? All you're doing is bitching about wrongfun.
You're the one acting like a baby. If you don't like it fine, he said you don't have to, no one cares, but "REEEE everything I don't like sucks" makes you sound retarded and childish.

I'm a fan of ripples myself.

Man maddox's videos suck shit in comparison to his written stuff

My Xia. Heavenly Immortal tier taste.

Well, logically, "rule of cool" does not make any sense for WHY something unrealistic would work a certain way in a fictional setting. So... yep, assertion supported. If the answer to "Why" is just "it's cool" or "It's fun" or "that's how shit works in this world", those are all the opposite of internal logic. They are dismissals of logic.

>'Heroes keep fighting at full strength until they go down', as an assumed and implicit part of a setting, is logical. It's the way things work in that world, so why wouldn't it be? If you end up criticizing the premise of the setting itself, you're just missing the point.

Oh I get it: you're retarded. You literally think that "circular logic" is the same as "internal logic". Your argument is hereby dead and buried. May it rest in peace.

Yeah, but have you ever thought that no one cares what you think?

Not really. You can say nobody cares, but they are bothering to respond and take offense, so they're showing evidence of caring. In truth, I also care what others think, which is why I came here to discuss things and back up my arguments instead of leaving the thread.

>All you're doing is bitching about wrongfun.
I explicitly said that stupid and illogical systems can be fun. I also made it clear that I don't personally respect them in RPG's. Do I need to add the disclaimers so you will stop crying?

>You're the one acting like a baby. If you don't like it fine, he said you don't have to, no one cares,
I also said he doesn't have to agree with my opinion, so that proves nothing. And again, I think some people do care enough to debate it, so you're deflecting.

> but "REEEE everything I don't like sucks" makes you sound retarded and childish.
Let's go back to where the argument started. I answered somebody's question (I assume his) about why D&D's HP system sucks in people's opinions. Already, it should be clear that I was giving MY OWN PERSONAL opinion and he didn't need to shit his pants about it.

The only circular logic here is yours

>Well, logically, "rule of cool" does not make any sense for WHY something unrealistic would work a certain way in a fictional setting.

This goes both ways.

>In a fictional setting, 'realism' does not make any sense for WHY something realistic would work a certain way in a fictional setting.

You're insisting that you can enforce your own personal assumptions on any setting as an absolute standard of 'logic', flat out disregarding that anything else could be a reasonable basis for it.

>You can say nobody cares, but they are bothering to respond and take offense, so they're showing evidence of caring
No what I care about is the fact degradation of the board by people like you, who actively go out there way to be as combative as possible because they think it's a sign of wit. I don't care what you like, I care about how you pollute a simple discussion for no reason than to be a bitch.

> I don't personally respect them in RPG'
>hey can be fun, but if you play them in a certain way, you've lost the respect of I, the turboretard

>I also said he doesn't have to agree with my opinion, so that proves nothing. And again
But you have this odd desire to let everyone know how beneath it these games are to you

Let me make this crystal clear.
No one's decrying your opinion, they're decrying you acting like an autist.
You're whining into the night because someone has different, and probably more varied tastes than you, so you'll pretend you have some intellectual high-ground because you prefer something better than "Stupid fun" because every game where you don't have to clean out your bullet wounds with peroxide, then go through physical therapy for months to walk again is too plebeian for your amazing taste.

But your games don't make you do that do they? Because at a certain point even you, the king of "internal logic" realizes that a certain amount of logic and realism would force the game to a grinding halt. Hell, you're probably the kind of player who wants realism, but the moment is poorly thought logic backfires in game, you throw a hissy fit thinking just because what little bit of brain you have thought something up means it's not retarded.

You'll go on and bitch, but every time someone points out that all you're doing is being a pest you'll go "Hey, that's just my opinion tho, so like you can't criticize me being a retard"

You're pretentious, but you're also not actually that smart or interesting, you're the worst form of pretentious.

>You're insisting that you can enforce your own personal assumptions on any setting as an absolute standard of 'logic', flat out disregarding that anything else could be a reasonable basis for it.
Oh wow, you're actually EXTRA retarded: you think that fictional settings can have SECRET HIDDEN explanations that account for unrealism, as if they are magical realms that behave by cryptic rules hidden from our eyes!

As somebody who actually writes and creates fiction myself, I know that a lack of explanation -- or worse yet, some dismissal like "Rule of Cool" -- means the creators are either lazy or stupid. Therefore I don't respect fictional settings where there is no STATED AND EXPLICIT logic for how things work. Does that get through your thick skull?

D&D does not have any logic besides what the authors explicitly state in their official materials. I'm not "enforcing my own assumptions of standards of personal absolutes" or whatever jibberish you're spouting, I'm looking at the actual material provided and finding it lacking.

-They have an unrealistic system,
- Instead of creating internal logic to explain it, they neglect or imply that it's not unimportant
-This in turn means they don't think their fictional setting is important enough to explain
-It also means the internal logic of their whole system is lazy

You might find it easy to overlook these things, but I don't. So I say they're stupid, because I shouldn't have to spell it all out for dummies like yourself who get your feelings hurt when I have other priorities than you.

>pollute a simple discussion
Go back and look at where this started. I was 100% courteous and simply said that a game's mechanics should enforce a world's internal logic. Is that "polluting" to you? Turns out this other faggot couldn't leave it alone and has been trying to put me on the defensive ever since. You're going totally off topic and shitting up this thread with irrelevant referee wanking

At no point have you actually given any evidence as to why what You consider a reasonable basis is any more valid than anything else. You're just standing by your personal assertion and acting as if it is obvious, objective truth.

>hey can be fun, but if you play them in a certain way, you've lost the respect of I, the turboretard
Not an argument. Just your own sensitivity.

>But you have this odd desire to let everyone know how beneath it these games are to you
Nigger, we're on Veeky Forums discussing the pros and cons of fucking Hit Points. Can you be more fucking retarded by making it sound "odd" that I'd argue my view on exactly that subject? kys

I tried reading the rest of your pointless ad hominem diatribe, but you just projected so hard it might have caused me to go blind.

Oh man, you think game systems are meant to simulate instead of be abstractions that facilitate game play.

HP and so much more of D&D isn't a simulation of how the world works, but abstractions of how the world works. HP is a combination of multiple things, from fatigue, to luck, to physical wounds.

Runequest 6.
7 hit locations: head, limbs, chest and abdomen. All have their own hp based on your size and constitution, typically ranging from 4 to 8 hp.
Three types of wounds: minor, serious and major wounds.
Minor wounds are when hit location has taken some damage, but it's not at 0 hp or below. No penalties yet.
Serious wounds are when hp is 0 or below. Typically it's an endurance check to see if your hit location is usable - serious wound in head, chest or abdomen renders you incapacitated. If end. check is passed, you get -20 to your skill rolls until healed.
Major wounds occur at the negative equal of hit location hp, and mean that the location is utterly devastated - chopped off, for example. Endurance check to see if you don't die outright, on a pass you are just bleeding to death in a matter of seconds (typically in 3 rounds' time).

For reference: A typical longsword does 1d8 damage and the average hp in hands are 4, so without armour it's very possible to kill an opponent with a single blow. Armour is very important, as even a gambeson/leather gives 2 points of damage reduction.

In short: rq6 is potentially very lethal if players are stupid. However, in my current game, we have had tens of fights and not a single serious wound has been received, even though our GM has put us against all kinds of overwhelming odds.

So let me get this right: you're asking for evidence... of the validity... of my basis... for...? God damn son, I've already said it's my opinion. I've already said why it matters to me personally. I've given you the childish disclaimers you seem to think are necessary to provide before stating a belief. How autistic do you have to be to keep trickling out these half-formed sentences trying to undermine the very concept of a viewpoint? The last desperate attempts of a faggot.

Try this instead: "I understand where you're coming from and I disagree. Thanks for explaining your point of view."

>Oh man, you think game systems are meant to simulate instead of be abstractions that facilitate game play.
"Meant to"? No, I never said that. However, they have the potential to at least EXPLAIN their "abstractions" with internal logic, which IN MY OPINION makes them more compelling, intuitive, interesting, and fleshed out.

Can you get off my dick now and crawl back into your haystack? Abstractions are necessary. Internal logic is a luxury. I want that luxury.

>Not an argument
Literally /pol/
Not surprising.
>Just your own sensitivity.
Nah, I actually like more simulistic games, and I can express this without throwing a bitchfit.

>we're on Veeky Forums discussing the pros and cons of fucking Hit Points. Can you be more fucking retarded by making it sound "odd" that I'd argue my view on exactly that subject?
Except your not, all you're doing is saying how you like something so therefore it must be good, you've added in no real arguments.
You said it's good because it has logic, the other guy said that wasn't really a raison d'etre for everyone, and all you could do is double down without adding any new reasons, aside that you like logic.

>I tried reading the rest of your pointless ad hominem diatribe
Didn't you call me retarded? I guess I shouldn't expect more from you.

Here's the TLDR, you're neither smart nor clever, you're games aren't as realistic as you think, all you do is whine and masquerade it as your opinion to deflect that your just whining.

I'm asking for evidence based on your claims of what is or is not acceptable when it comes to internal logic. Unless you're backpedaling on that because you don't actually have a point?

Dude, Im not even sure of what you even mean by "internal logic of the abstractions". You're going to need to provide an example of this that isn't just a simulationist type system.

See

>they have the potential to at least EXPLAIN their "abstractions" with internal logic, which IN MY OPINION makes them more compelling, intuitive, interesting, and fleshed out.

How about that, retard? I've now given four pieces of criteria for how internal logic explanations for unrealistic shit helps ME AND PEOPLE LIKE ME enjoy a game system more:

- Compelling
- Intuitive
- Interesting
- Fleshed out

Do I REALLY need to fucking explain why internal logic improves those pieces of criteria for me? Are you that stupid, or can you comprehend where i'm coming from by now?

>I'm asking for evidence based on your claims of what is or is not acceptable when it comes to internal logic.
So you want examples? Well, D&D does an excellent job establishing internal logic for different magic systems by including tons of material related to gods, planes of reality, etc. The fact that this internal logic ties into and reinforces the mechanics of why some magic works one way and others work a different way helps me understand and appreciate the whole system more. Is that the kind of "evidence" you're looking for? Because this is all going to boil down to what I enjoy, in case you're still scratching your soft little head about my "basis".

To contrast D&D's great magic internal logic, Hit Points that allow you to function perfectly fine when near death are stupid and have no internal logic.

>To contrast D&D's great magic internal logic, Hit Points that allow you to function perfectly fine when near death are stupid and have no internal logic.

...But they do though. It's right there in the DMG, of literally every edition. Hit Points are an abstraction of minor injuries, luck, stamina and your general ability to avoid serious injury. Any actual injury is represented by zero or negative hit points- At which point you are severely penalized if not completely unable to take actions.

How is this any less logical and consistent than fucking magic?

>- Compelling
>- Intuitive
>- Interesting
>- Fleshed out
>I like it because of these vague reasons and that's why I like it, and me saying I like it for these vague reasons I'm contributing
You really aren't very bright. Maybe come up with good reasons why you like something, learn to express those reasons, and act in a calm and rational manner and people won't point out you're an obnoxious whiny brat. All you've done is reinforced the fact that all you can do is whine, and when pressed for reasons you have none. All you're saying is you like it because you like it.
But I guess it's fine, after all it is "Just your onion"

Mutants and Masterminds has a good system. You roll a save to see how badly each hit injures you, based on how powerful the attack was. Fail by a little, and you're injured and take other hits more easily. Fail by more, and you're also stunned and lose the next turn. Fail by a lot, and you're disabled and can only take half actions. Fail one of those again, or fail by a ton, and you're out.

>This whole fucking rant

Angry guy, for someone bitching a lot about consistency and logic you are wildly inconsistent and illogical.

Yea, his argument about magic is also kind of dumb. The magic is simply asserted as different, and that's the extent to which its explained within the system. Gods give spells, and they are divine. That's literally the full explanation. Same with arcane and psionics and all the other magic varieties.

The settings usually explain it more, by giving background and fleshed out explanations for the origins and its use.

I used the concept with an orc barbarian i had the group fight. They were fumbling all over the place, so the orc was pretty much making fun of them, so when they started doing good and not missing constantly, i had him use his rage skill.

Then the dwarf crit.

Haven't you ever heard one of the many metaphors about a cornered animal?

I happen to have the 5th edition DMG right in front of me on my lap. Care to point out where that explanation is? I looked at the "Combat" section and it doesn't say anything about why Hit Points work the way they do. Doesn't look like there's any section regarding it either. I think you're lying out of your ass because you're wrong, but I'll let you prove otherwise.

>minor injuries, luck, stamina and your general ability to avoid serious injury
That's a funny lie, even if that is what the DMG stated. Tons of described attacks in the Monster Manual and elsewhere specifically describe the ferocious nature of attacks impacting your character. Being burned by dragon's breath? Being knocked back or prone by huge ogre smashes? That's an abstraction of minor injuries and stamina? Those shouldn't affect your character's performance in any way? You're saying that "zero hp = actually injured", right? So really, each hero can only take one real injury before they're down? Literally not one DM has ever described combat that way in the history of D&D, so either the system does a shit job at explaining everything, or you're trying to invent logic where none exists.

>The magic is simply asserted as different,
>Gods give spells, and they are divine. That's literally the full explanation
Yep, but guess what? Unless you're retarded, you would know that each of those "gods" has their own mythology and therefore their own explanation. Being "divine" is internal logic. It's may not be REAL LIFE logic, but it's a logic that is asserted, treated consistently by the system, and if accepted, explains things. I really didn't think you people would be so clueless about what internal logic actually means. Psychic powers and drawing power from other planes of existence are also understood to be things that have their own logic, whether established in the material or in culture at large. I'm not saying you don't need to explain why people need to breathe oxygen in D&D

Fighting spirit/wound points

Works just like HP, but wound points are a second layer of them. When you take wound points, you gain a pile of disadvantages which make it harder for you to attack (but not harder for you to defend). they're a big buzzer saying "Alert, alert, retreat."

Without healing, you heal one wound per 8 hour rest

Magic can also only heal wound points OR fighting spirit, not both. First aid can only heal fighting spirit, though longer term care can deal with wounds.

Just curious: is the reason you like the simplicity of the "wound gauge" the fact that it spares you from tracking many different things using pencil and paper?

In a game series where people flying and throwing fireballs and lightning from their hands is the norm, rule of cool beats logic. Its like arguing why shit happens in an anime. Because it does, now cool your shit and just play.

I generally describe the first half of your HP as being bruises and exhaustion, the next quarter as minor injuries, and the last quarter as increasingly serious injuries up to the one which downs you. If you're competent, it's easy to fit monster status effects into that kind of model.

Oh hey, someone else who reads the Angry DM. How well has that one been working out for you?

I'm pretty sure this is even how 4e codified it, that's why there was the bloodied system, well that and rules based off of it.

Well I guess that is true, it would be kinda interesting for a system to have that, like a pressure system where you're less accurate but you can fuck someone up because you're so pumped on adrenaline.

>It's right there in the DMG, of literally every edition
So heroes never get severly wounded early in a fight and then battle on, winning in spite of the odds? Yeah, D&D HPs remain a shitty game mechanic and the rationales for them is on the level of "my dog ate my homework".

Me as the GM? Yeah. If I assume that any wound is mechanically the same, even though the fighter & wizard have mechanically identical wounds, they play out differently. I just give them the one "wounded" token.

It hasn't come up yet, but I think that if I crit someone down to wounds (and not straight to unconsciousness) I'm going to have them lose a limb (because I'm playing a pirate game)

Not sure if I said this in my first post, but if you gain even one point of fighting spirit, you lose the disadvantage. So PCs potion drinking usually goes straight to fighting spirit.

I really enjoy it. Works exactly as intended

yeah and you have to do that because D&D's HPs do not seperate meatpoints from luck. because with pure meatpoints everyone has a fair assessment how much actual damage was done.

furthermore, it allowes to differntiate mechanically (always a good thing) tough characters without special fortune from squishy characters who just have tons of luck in avoiding damage.

>dragon's breath?
You got singed
>You barely dodged knowing the breath out of you

It's pretty easy to handwave, which is fine because DnD isn't meant to be realistic, because not every game is meant to, because sometimes it's nice to play high realism high danger Shadowrun, and sometimes a nice game of DnD is fun to play.
It's like complaining about realism in a superman movie, you're kinda missing the point.

>"that's how shit works in this world", those are all the opposite of internal logic.

Wouldn't that BE internal logic, if that's how it works in that universe?

That seems like the intended point. But of course he just contradicts it without doing anything to back up his argument.

>D&D HPs remain a shitty game mechanic
And you're reason for that is why? That it doesn't model real world damage?
>rationales for them is on the level of "my dog ate my homework".
Are you feeling okay user, you're stating to sound less and less coherent.

HP is variously describe in every edition, I don't know about 5e since I don't play it, and it's always described as some combination of fatigue, luck, health, and simple ability to take a hit.

PF has dropped most of that for simply going with robustness and health, making it essentially meat points, which i'm perfectly fine with.

This is the same level of explanation as the divine magic is spells given by gods. That you can't see this is rather amazing. It actually paints you as someone expecting something more simulationist, and thus realistic, with its shitty death spiral suckitude and not looking at it without that bias.

Do you know how many people disregard real lifes utterly shitty death spiral shit? All kinds of people, from many authors of fantasy, scifi and other genres, to game devs of many types of video games and ttrpgs. Its not fun, it doesn't make games better, and all it does it make it such that any fight you do get in likely to result in death. Death is not fun.

>'Heroes keep fighting at full strength until they go down', as an assumed and implicit part of a setting, is logical
it could be considered as such. however, I have to point out that it's a shitty, retarded logic, inspired by brand loyalty to a system that has out-of-date mechanics at its core.

>Implying I give a flying fuck about D&D

See the above point in the same post about mecha settings. It's no different.

>anime
Ah... that explains the awful taste in stupid things.

Do you actually enforce those status effects? If so, you're not playing by the D&D rules. I respect how you modify them to create some internal logic, but it only shows how lame their system is by contrast.

I remember "bloodied", I thought it would start moving D&D in the right direction. Turns out no.

Finally somebody else intelligent.

>You got singed
So when I lose 35 HP... I got singed? And this 35 HP I lost represents the kind of pain that brings me closer to death, but doesn't affect my performance in any way?

>You barely dodged knocking the breath out of you
Again, the number makes this stupid. If it's just handwaved and minor, I shouldn't lose HP at all. If it actually knocked my breath out, I should suffer a consequence in my performance. I can recover from losing my breath, so why are my HP still kept low until I'm healed by fucking magic?

See how it all falls apart without internal logic?

>Wouldn't that BE internal logic, if that's how it works in that universe?
"It works that way because it works that way" is CIRCULAR logic, not internal logic. Internal logic is saying that the One Ring was forged by Sauron, has X powers, and can only be destroyed by Y. Those things need to be SAID and they need to be CONSISTENT for it to be internal logic. "The One Ring just works that way because it works that way," is retarded and the opposite of logic.

See above and also this guy:

That's where the "bruises and exhaustion" comes into play. If you're a tough heavily armored character you block the hit, if you're a light and fast character you barely dodge.

>Still arguing about logic in a game setting predominantly filled with literally impossible things

What a fucking retard.

>Realism is not something every system finds equal value in and needs to address in the same way.
it is time to raise the question if a lot of fantasy gamers actually think D&D's handling of HPs is good or if they only accept it coming from D&D because it is D&D, the de facto standard.

>See how it all falls apart without internal logic?
I actually don't think you even know what that word means do you?
It is internal logic. In DnD dragon fire at a certain point of an adventures life doesn't kill them. When people in DnD aren't killed they are at full fighting strength. This is pretty simple.

HP is fine. It does the job, but it's not particularly interesting. Unfortunately people talking about better systems has been drowned out by the loud blithering idiot sperging all over the board.

>HP is variously describe in every edition
Really, only 3.x broke this trend by not flat out saying, like every other edition, that hitpoints is what you said it was, leading to the misunderstanding oh HP by most people on this board (who were weaned on the 3.x teat).

It's good at what it is, DnD is a simple game with simple rules for the most part. It's probably the best game for beer and pretzels and can work for more serious tones if you like, as long as you don't care about deep simulationist game mechanics. The HP mechanics reflect this.