Damage systems - which do you like best? [action-based RPGs in general, I guess]

[lesser_minion]

I'm trying to choose between several different damage systems to use in my games IRL, and I thought I'd ask for opinions from the rest of the playground.

What damage systems do you like best, and why?

A few examples that I've encountered:

• Hitpoints and healing surges (or Reserve Points). Under this system, hitpoints become a measure of system shock more than anything - take enough damage in a short period of time and your character drops.At the same time, there is only so much a character can soak - even though most injuries are largely inconsequential.
• Traditional hitpoints, where one number tracks how close you are to death. Abstract, but very simple. The effects of running out could be death, incapacitation, or vary depending on an 'overkill' system such as the one found in Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay
• Wound and Vitality Point systems. Characters have a store of Vitality Points which recover quickly, and once these are gone, or under certain other circumstances, the character loses Wound Points. Similar to damage box systems (e.g. the Alternity system).
• Threshold-based systems. Based on hitpoints, with the additional caveat that any attack dealing more than a certain amount of damage may have an additional effect - e.g. moving the character on a damage track or even dropping the character instantly as in Call of Cthulhu. 3.x D&D is a bad example of this, as Massive Damage exists only as a 'chunky salsa rule', rather than a major gameplay element.
• Injury systems, like the system from True20 - when you hit someone, they roll a saving throw against a DC depending on how hard you hit them. A failure causes penalties, with worse failures leading to other effects. A failure by 10 or more effectively incapacitates the character, while a failure by 20 or more is fatal. There are also table-based examples, which often combine with hit locations.
• Wound Levels. Similar to injury systems, but failing saves drops your character a level on a 'wound track'. The further down you are, the closer your character is to death and the more serious the penalties imposed. Doesn't feature in D&D to my knowledge, but older versions of Ars Magica use it.
• Hit Location systems - similar to other systems, but adding a table to determine where you were hit. One of the other systems is used to determine the overall effect of a hit to any given location.

[shadzar]

I don't know if it really fits any of those, but I always thought of hit points in a more traditional manner. Meaning physical damage from being wounded. They heal slowly without magical assistance, and lost limbs don't lower your hit points, but are their own problems to have to be healed by non-natural ways.

Probably best fits into 3rd edition still healing/hit points..

[The Rose Dragon]

M&M version.

Basically, it's like True20, only simpler and failing your Toughness save by more than 20 doesn't mean instant death.

[RTGoodman]

Wound Levels. Similar to injury systems, but failing saves drops your character a level on a 'wound track'. The further down you are, the closer your character is to death and the more serious the penalties imposed. Doesn't feature in D&D to my knowledge, but older versions of Ars Magica use it.

Star Wars SAGA Edition uses something like that. I don't own the book, though, so I can't give specifics.


I'd say that I prefer Option 2 (HP and Healing Surges), but it depends on the game. In general, though, I'd go with it or Option 1 (Standard HP), since I don't really like VP/WP systems or Track systems.

[Mando Knight]

Game-wise, I prefer 4E's system of set HP and Surges. Not because of any value they have or lack regarding to verisimilitude, but rather because they're easier to keep track of.

[Xallace]

M&M version.

Basically, it's like True20, only simpler and failing your Toughness save by more than 20 doesn't mean instant death.

Whole-heartedly this.

I really can't think of a system I like more.

[Morty]

I don't have much experience with health systems not based on hit points, but I'll say that neither the HP system from 3ed nor from 4ed pleases me. I like the one from 3ed more - it has a semblance of realism - but it's still not very good. It would work much better without HP inflating by level and with loss of HP having an effect on character's effectiveness.

[Dentarthur]

This may sound like a cop-out, but it really depends on what kind of game you're playing. Take the list of options you gave, but put "HP and healing surges" at the top. You now have a scale going from "heroic and awesome" to "gritty and dangerous". At the heroic end, individual PCs are self-sufficient and can take on armies single-handedly at high levels. At the gritty end, even the toughest character must realize that he's putting his life in danger every time he goes into combat.

I greatly prefer the heroic end of the scale, and find the HP/surges mechanic to be excellent for that kind of play. Characters can prevail in fight after fight, and if it feels too easy then the DM can always send in tougher badguys or challenge the players in a non-combat manner. Nobody has to play a walking medicine cabinet, since everyone can recover wounds on their own (though having a healer still helps).

At the gritty end of the scale, I think the game is more about avoiding combat than prevailing in combat. The more you fight, the worse off you will be. This is the more 'realistic' style of play, where the world is dangerous and the game relies more on the players' wits than the PCs' abilities.

[lesser_minion]

Take the list of options you gave, but put "HP and healing surges" at the top. You now have a scale going from "heroic and awesome" to "gritty and dangerous". At the heroic end, individual PCs are self-sufficient and can take on armies single-handedly at high levels. At the gritty end, even the toughest character must realize that he's putting his life in danger every time he goes into combat.

This isn't necessarily the case. Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay and Dark Heresy use what amounts to a traditional hitpoints system, but nobody gets into a fight lightly in those.

At the same time, Exalted is supposed to be all about being heroic and awesome - but it uses a scale based on wound levels.

And I know some of the less complete homebrewed RPG ideas I've had used something very similar to the Healing Surges and Hitpoints system, but were still intended to be quite gritty.

I personally feel that it really could be more of a matter of personal taste than gritty realism, but I wanted to see people's thoughts and reasoning.

[Doug Lampert]

I'm trying to choose between several different damage systems to use in my games IRL, and I thought I'd ask for opinions from the rest of the playground.

Which of the following damage systems used in d20-based roleplaying games do you like best, and why?

• Traditional hitpoints - the pre-4e way, although regeneration mechanics can vary.
  
  The problem with this is that it strikes most people as unrealistic. The advantage is that it's simple to track and understand. It's not even all that unrealistic if you avoid wierd corner cases and ignore the fact that whether a wound drops you in combat isn't neccessarily all that well related to its survivability. But if you're rating wound severity with one number, than some sort of HP is a pretty good method of tracking the results.
  
  
• Hitpoints and healing surges (or Reserve Points). Hitpoints become the amount of punishment a character can withstand in a short space of time, with a separate stat tracking how much they can take over the course of a day. Long-lasting injuries are basically absent.
  
  Longer lasting injuries can be fairly trivially added back in if you want them by allowing the reserve to regenerate at less than "everything back every night". Try 4th ed with recovery of healing surges being limited to no more than one per week and no more than your total number per year and you have slow recovery.
  
  I always love that most game systems seem to claim that all long term fatigue (or game equivalent like lost HP/reserve) can be recovered by one night's rest in rough country. I can only assume the system's writers have either never actually been seriously tired, or they are grossly oversimplifying for gameplay and in game speed something which happens in down time and thus doesn't need much simplification.
  
  In the real world mild fatigue from yardwork can still hurt days later, and something like an ultra-marathon can take weeks to recover from.
  
  
• Wound points and Vitality points - VP recover rapidly and increase with level, but creatures can easily be felled by one mighty strike.
  
  Only because they make it too easy to bypass Vitality Points. Every critical, bah! If you're going to do that you NEED to add a way for skill to substantially reduce the chance of the opponent criticaling. But then if you're doing that you have two mechanisms to represent skill at "not being badly hurt", vitality and crit avoidance, where either one would do if implemented whole-heartedly.
  
  
• The injury system from True20 - when you hit someone, they roll a saving throw against a DC depending on how hard you hit them. Failing the save imposes penalties to further saves, failing it badly results in the character being stunned or dropping. Failing by 20 or more is instant death.
  
  Tends to reproduce a HP system in that we have ablative damage that high levels can take more of but to be more complicated to execute and subject to more random noise. What exactly is the advantage here?
  
  
• Wound Levels. Similar to injury systems, but failing saves drops your character a level on a 'wound track'. The further down you are, the closer your character is to death and the more serious the penalties imposed. Doesn't feature in D&D to my knowledge, but older versions of Ars Magica use it.
  
  Problem with this is that it is actually less realistic than straight HP! Intuitively it seems like a serious wound "must" slow you down, but what evidence is available from actual life or death combat implies that adrenline letting you ignore wounds till you drop is actually more realistic! (Up to and including some people ignoring wounds that will kill them dead in a matter of seconds and keep coming, while others fall down from something trivial.)
  
  And ignoring non-disabling wounds is certainly a better match to heroic fantasy and typically makes for better gaming since wound penalties tend make almost any attack into a "save or suck" situation.
  
  When something is better for matching genre, actual reality, AND for good gaming just go with it. People are either fighting at nearly full strength or unable to fight is fine.

[The Rose Dragon]

Tends to reproduce a HP system in that we have ablative damage that high levels can take more of but to be more complicated to execute and subject to more random noise. What exactly is the advantage here?

It works better than the three above it? It's more intuitive and easier to keep track of? It means you cannot jump off a plane and survive with what barely amounts to a scratch?

High levels cannot take more damage in True20, barring magic. Their Toughness save does not increase with level, and a gun shot is just as likely to kill them if it connects. And considering that high levels of damage is trivial to access, it just makes high level combat deadlier.

You always need more Conviction to survive. Always.

[Knaight]

I like Mutants and Masterminds system, which is fairly similar to True 20. I'm not a big fan of hit points, and like wound based systems, so its perfect for the job. That said, it is a bit generous, to fit the superhero style, so something as simple, but a little less lenient would be ideal. There are some Fudge wound systems I've seen that do that, and they aren't bad at all.

[lesser_minion]

Tends to reproduce a HP system in that we have ablative damage that high levels can take more of but to be more complicated to execute and subject to more random noise. What exactly is the advantage here?

I have to admit that out of the ones I listed, it's probably the one I was leaning towards the most when I posted

The biggest point I felt was in its favour was that it seems much easier to relate the damage roll to the action than when using hitpoints. The chance to shrug off an injury entirely, or to be seriously injured, also makes some sense from a realism point of view.

My main reason for asking this is that I'm not sold on any given system, but I think all of these have merits.

[Tsotha-lanti]

My first favorite is easily the system of The Riddle of Steel. You've got hit location tables (the only ones used in the game, and very fast to use; nothing like Rolemaster), and for each location there's five damage levels. Each one has a different amount of Shock (immediate penalty to combat dice pool), Pain (cumulative, persistent penalty to combat dice pool, also measures healing time), and Blood Loss (cumulative from different locations). There's additional effects like knock-out and knock-down, cripplings, etc. There's no hit points of any sort; you can be instantly killed by hits to vitals, KO'd, or have your dice pools reduced so far by Pain you're incapable of fighting. In a really long fight (which doesn't take all that long to play, thanks to simplicity), you can also bleed to death (losing points from your Endurance score) over a few minutes or seconds, depending on the severity of your blood loss. Healing takes forever, because the game is low-to-no-magic by default, and big on realism. Combat is, overall, realistically dangerous and undesirable (unless you're a big burly knight in full armor who can expect to surrender when losing and get ransomed).

(Rolemaster's system is theoretically similar: hit points measure the ability to stand bloodloss, shock, and pain, wounds cause injuries like bleeding, penalties, cripplings, etc. But in practice it's too married to hit points, and the tables are random and "harmless" my players had, at levels 6-10, to literally beat on trolls and dragons until their hit points dropped to 0, despite constantly scoring the most severe level of critical hits.)

After that come wound level systems, like in White Wolf games, Legend of Five Rings, Decipher's LOTR (where you have hit points on each level), etc.
edit:
I should elaborate on my favorite, the system in Decipher's Lord of the Rings. You have a Health value based on your ability scores, and on each of six levels you have that amount of Health points. A solid blow from a sword can take an average unarmored Man down several levels, while a great blow from the same sword may not take a Troll down even a single level - but that troll could cripple a healthy Man in one critical blow. Each level has its own penalty. Heroes are fairly resilient, but Health is recovered very slowly indeed; getting injured is very undesirable because the penalties will make everything harder for you, but random dice-based death is rare. Very appropriate to the theme and style.
/edit

Then come locational hit point systems, like in RuneQuest. They tend to be over-lethal and in RQ are not very granular, but that's fine.

Then it's M&M and True20.

Then it's hit points and healing surges, like in 4E, because I don't like the abundant (and worse, required) magic of 3.X.

And finally, just hit points. Bleah!

[Stegyre]

I have to admit that out of the ones I listed, it's probably the one I was leaning towards the most when I posted

The biggest point I felt was in its favour was that it seems much easier to relate the damage roll to the action than when using hitpoints. The chance to shrug off an injury entirely, or to be seriously injured, also makes some sense from a realism point of view.

My main reason for asking this is that I'm not sold on any given system, but I think all of these have merits.

My own preference is for this system. I even learned enough perl to write a script to calculate the average number of hits a character could take, assuming a certain starting fortitude save.

That being said, I've not had the chance to use it in a campaign. Has anyone tried it out? It strikes me as a good approach particularly for an e6/low level campaign, but I'm sorely lacking in experience.

[The Rose Dragon]

Then it's M&M and True20.

Then it's hit points and healing surges, like in 4E, because I don't like the abundant (and worse, required) magic of 3.X.

And finally, just hit points. Bleah!

I don't think the rest are d20-based systems. So these three are the only ones that really apply.

Hit points can actually be good if they are done right, like in Unisystem. While you have a hit point total around 30-60, most attacks cause at least 10 point damage, so you can take about six hits at best. However, since we're talking d20-based systems, I think we all agree that Toughness Save System is the way to go.

[lesser_minion]

I've expanded the discussion to include non-d20 systems, although you're right about the discussion starting with d20 and True20.

[Tsotha-lanti]

I don't think the rest are d20-based systems. So these three are the only ones that really apply.

Hit points can actually be good if they are done right, like in Unisystem. While you have a hit point total around 30-60, most attacks cause at least 10 point damage, so you can take about six hits at best. However, since we're talking d20-based systems, I think we all agree that Toughness Save System is the way to go.

Oh, true, I forgot Unisystem. It's totally different from the D&D-style hit points, though, and almost a locational hit point system done in reverse; hits to various locations deal more damage, etc. It's similar to GURPS. Both are characterised by static hit points, too - it's pretty drat hard to raise them, and there's no leveling up and eventually having ten or twenty times the hit points you started with. Both are pretty excellent.

[Morty]

However, since we're talking d20-based systems, I think we all agree that Toughness Save System is the way to go.

I can name at least one person in this thread who doesn't agree... I'm not sure about myself. I don't have much experience with non-HP based health systems.
Anyway, to elaborate on my earlier post, another system in which hit point damage works well is WFRP 2nd edition - a character's got hit points, but they don't get inflated so much that a sword blow doesn't mean anything but despite the system being gritty, you don't die automatically. The worst way I've seen HP used is 4ed D&D, because they don't mean anything - it's too easy to regain them. 3ed HP would be good, if high-level characters didn't have so much HP and if there were some penalties for losing HP - sure, the game's supposed to be heroic, but taking a hail of crossbow bolts and still living?. More wide use of coup-de-grace would also be handy, so it's easier to just kill someone without caring about HP. The big advantage HP have is that the're simple to use - you get hit, you lose HP. No additional rolls required.
tl;dr - HP are good if there's not too many of them.

[The Rose Dragon]

Oh, true, I forgot Unisystem. It's totally different from the D&D-style hit points, though, and almost a locational hit point system done in reverse; hits to various locations deal more damage, etc. It's similar to GURPS. Both are characterised by static hit points, too - it's pretty drat hard to raise them, and there's no leveling up and eventually having ten or twenty times the hit points you started with. Both are pretty excellent.

Speaking of which, I'm still waiting for you to find time to return to your Fallout Unisystem conversion.

Though you might consider largely nerfing AP bullets to remain true to source material.

[Halaster]

After playing several variants I would say there are two I really like:

- systems that track actual injuries and use hit points at best as a complementary. Harnmaster and Rolemaster come to mind. You can go unconscious through hit point loss, but by the time that happens you probably have a bunch of bleeding cuts and busted bones.
- systens that use a damage track which results in measurable penalties to the PCs abilities before they drop, like just about anything White Wolf.

Both varieties allow for an end to combat that doesn't result in everyone's death (everyone on one side, at least). In D&D and similar systems, there is no real reason to surrender, unless you know for sure that the other side still has significantly more hit points than you do. Even if you're down to a few points, you can still hope that your enemy will drop first.
If you are hardly able to lift your sword, however, there is a genuine incentive to cry for quarter.
Even the new bloodied rule in 4.0 is still kind of light on this.

Now you might say that the purpose of D&D is not this kind of realism. But it severly limits the options anyway. You either win or die - no daring escapes and such.

[NPCMook]

Star Wars SAGA Edition uses something like that. I don't own the book, though, so I can't give specifics.


I'd say that I prefer Option 2 (HP and Healing Surges), but it depends on the game. In general, though, I'd go with it or Option 1 (Standard HP), since I don't really like VP/WP systems or Track systems.

Since no one seemed to cover this I will. SWSE has the condition Chart, if an enemy's damage is equal to or greater than your Fortitude then you drop down on the condition chart taking a -1 to all actions until healed, further down is -2/-5/-10/Helpless

If you reach Stage 5 on the track you fall unconscious, but are not dead. If the Damage dealt to you is greater than your remaining HP, and Exceeds your Fortitude then you are dead(Hope that made sense)

[lesser_minion]

@NPCMook: I'll separate out threshold-based hitpoint systems on the list. I remember seeing a homebrew wound track system for d20 Modern, so I kind of understand you there.

[Artanis]

Since it's expanded beyond just d20, one that I like is Heavy Gear. It falls into the "Injury Systems" and "Hit location" categories.

In Heavy Gear, a combatant has X armor. When somebody takes a hit, the damage is calculated:

*If damage < X, no effect
*If X <= damage < 2X, it's a light hit - armor goes down by 1 and you roll on a table to see what gets knocked out as the target is hurt, but not really crippled
*If 2X <= damage < 3X, it's a major hit - armor goes down by 2 and you roll on a table to see what gets knocked out as the target is seriously messed up
*If 3X < damage, the target goes down

[Saph]

I can name at least one person in this thread who doesn't agree... I'm not sure about myself. I don't have much experience with non-HP based health systems.

Yeah, I'm not a fan of M&M style Toughness saves. When we tried it it led to:

*shot with gun* *roll of 12*
"Hah, bounced off!"
*shot with gun* *roll of 14*
"Hah, bounced off!"
*shot with gun* *roll of 1*
". . . and I'm down and dying."

So everyone just saved their Hero Points to neutralise hits, except for the character with Regeneration who could ignore them. It didn't feel very satisfying.

Personally my favourite is the 3.5 style Hit Point system. It's crude, but it's also fast and intuitive. The 4e addition of Healing Surges I've found to be just extra bookkeeping, as I've yet to see a game where lack of surges had any significant effect.

- Saph

[TheThan]

I like the system used in D20 modern. It felt perfect for the styles of games that system can run.

It uses the standard D20 hit point system with an added “damage threshold” mechanic. When you take X or more damage in a single attack (x=your constitution score), you make a fort save, if you fail it you die. It you make it, you take the damage normally. It makes it feel like a character can be in an epic fistfight, yet still die from a single gunshot.

But the problem is that the DC for the fort save is only DC 15, which eventually becomes really easy to make. So really it needs to scale to pose a risk to high level players.

[Dhavaer]

I like the system used in D20 modern. It felt perfect for the styles of games that system can run.

It uses the standard D20 hit point system with an added “damage threshold” mechanic. When you take X or more damage in a single attack (x=your constitution score), you make a fort save, if you fail it you die. It you make it, you take the damage normally. It makes it feel like a character can be in an epic fistfight, yet still die from a single gunshot.

But the problem is that the DC for the fort save is only DC 15, which eventually becomes really easy to make. So really it needs to scale to pose a risk to high level players.

As long as you do something to the nonlethal damage rules, it works fine. But since non-lethal only has the massive damage rule and doesn't add up like in D&D, you can have two people punching each other more or less until they die of old age.

[TheThan]

As long as you do something to the nonlethal damage rules, it works fine. But since non-lethal only has the massive damage rule and doesn't add up like in D&D, you can have two people punching each other more or less until they die of old age.

Yeah, there's that.

I think the easiest solution is to simply remove the standard non-lethal system, and use the standard system, only if they fail their save or get their HP reduced to zero, they fall unconscious (getting KOed essentially).

I just thought this up so It’d need testing. But it seems like a fair solution to a problem they should have seen coming when they designed it.

[Draz74]

I'm trying to choose between several different damage systems to use in my games IRL, and I thought I'd ask for opinions from the rest of the playground.

What damage systems do you like best, and why?

Oooh, good poll! Just the topic I need to see a lot of well-explained opinions on.

Unfortunately I myself am going to be ambivalent ...

• Hitpoints and healing surges (or Reserve Points). Hitpoints become the amount of punishment a character can withstand in a short space of time, with a separate stat tracking how much they can take over the course of a day. Long-lasting injuries are basically absent.

• The virtue of this system is that is can prevent the 15-minute workday syndrome, if there aren't too many ways to use up Reserve Points mid-combat. Because as long as you survive a battle and are able to take a short rest, you can be reasonably functional in another battle ... but eventually you will still need a real rest. I like that. But the lack of clarity about what exactly HP represent in this system is still a sore point for me.
  
  

• Traditional hitpoints, where one number tracks how close you are to death. Abstract, but very simple. The effects of running out could be death, incapacitation, or vary depending on an 'overkill' system such as the one found in Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay

[Draz74]

Re: VP/WP

Only because they make it too easy to bypass Vitality Points. Every critical, bah! If you're going to do that you NEED to add a way for skill to substantially reduce the chance of the opponent criticaling. But then if you're doing that you have two mechanisms to represent skill at "not being badly hurt", vitality and crit avoidance, where either one would do if implemented whole-heartedly.

One idea I've been toying with is where armor is the main system for crit avoidance. As in, armor has nothing to do with avoiding a hit in the first place, but is quite potent at preventing crits. That makes vitality and crit avoidance feel like two very different methods of "not being badly hurt."

Come to think of it, we should list the role(s) of armor in each of these systems ...