This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.

What if instead of giving Monsters HP, you gave them......

Started by Razor 007, January 21, 2019, 11:45:21 PM

Previous topic - Next topic
Print
Go Down Pages 1 2 3 4 5
User actions

Razor 007

#30
January 23, 2019, 02:18:40 PM
Quote from: MonsterSlayer;1072363Ok, yeah I thought he was looking for a faster alternative to hp. Re-reading it, yeah he he just wants encounters to end in a predetermined narrative.

I was just giving him a solution where the outcome was nearly guaranteed for low importance combats but might still require some resource use to get it over quickly.

Carry on....


Not always.  I love the random outcomes generated by rolling dice.  I just want the big cahunas, to play out as big cahunas, and not be a let down.  If the grand finale has a few PCs making death saves, that's exciting; but I don't necessarily want to create a TPK either.
I need you to roll a perception check.....

Chris24601

#31
January 23, 2019, 02:40:22 PM
Quote from: Zalman;1072369A lower "resolution of resolution", as it were.
Indeed.

In fact, that's basically the way a LOT of video game boss battles are handled if they aren't a 'how quickly can you mash the attack button in X time?' test. Heck, land a hit after performing X sequence of actions to drop its defenses and then the boss changes to more difficult tactics (often by adding a step to whatever you needed to do to land a hit the first time) and finally drops on the third hit is a video game staple.

The funny thing is that even when "hit points" are used, the amount of damage it takes to drop a critter generally works out to "about three 'vulnerability cycles' worth of hits." And it has become recursive back to RPGs where hit point values for opponents are often about equal to three hits from an at-level PC.

The thing is, it does work better for video games because their linear paths ensure that you'll only encounter a give foe once you've reached certain levels of experience/achievement and thus it takes three hits at that point in time (some games even give you lesser versions later that can be dropped in two or even one hit to create the experience of your having 'leveled up').

It works better there because you can pull off the 'one vulnerable point' trope by means other than rolling a dice to see if you hit it or not; timing or coordination becomes the test.

What might work better in line with the OP's original suggestion would be what I've heard terms "puzzle monsters." A puzzle monster is one where its essentially invulnerable to damage unless you work out the puzzle. Say for example, an Ice Beetle whose hide is covered in a layer of ice that absorbs all damage until you successfully deal fire damage to it and melt off the icy coating and then becomes a fairly easy to dispatch monster.

If you wanted to make it more complex, removing its ice armor doesn't actually allow it to be damaged directly, but its now unstable enough that you can knock it prone by various means and when it is prone it exposes a vulnerable point that can be targeted (until it regains its feet).

Thus, defeating the beast requires doing enough fire damage to crack its outer ice shell, then coordinating trip attacks so that the rest of the party can hit the vulnerable point.

You could still involve actual checks in there; actually hitting the target to deal fire damage (and how much fire damage it takes) and perhaps having to keep re-applying fire damage to keep it from regrowing the icy shell... then checks to trip the beast and/or keep it prone... finally attack rolls against the vulnerable point while it is prone; but the idea would be that even a really good roll would only advance you one stage in defeating the opponent.

Yes, that sounds EXACTLY like a video game, because that's what that particular example is based on, but if you're looking to keep a fight from being ended quite so easily, at least its not "no matter what you do, the monster drops after X rounds."

Azraele

#32
January 23, 2019, 07:52:31 PM
Quote from: Chris24601;1072376Indeed.

In fact, that's basically the way a LOT of video game boss battles are handled if they aren't a 'how quickly can you mash the attack button in X time?' test. Heck, land a hit after performing X sequence of actions to drop its defenses and then the boss changes to more difficult tactics (often by adding a step to whatever you needed to do to land a hit the first time) and finally drops on the third hit is a video game staple.

The funny thing is that even when "hit points" are used, the amount of damage it takes to drop a critter generally works out to "about three 'vulnerability cycles' worth of hits." And it has become recursive back to RPGs where hit point values for opponents are often about equal to three hits from an at-level PC.

The thing is, it does work better for video games because their linear paths ensure that you'll only encounter a give foe once you've reached certain levels of experience/achievement and thus it takes three hits at that point in time (some games even give you lesser versions later that can be dropped in two or even one hit to create the experience of your having 'leveled up').

It works better there because you can pull off the 'one vulnerable point' trope by means other than rolling a dice to see if you hit it or not; timing or coordination becomes the test.

What might work better in line with the OP's original suggestion would be what I've heard terms "puzzle monsters." A puzzle monster is one where its essentially invulnerable to damage unless you work out the puzzle. Say for example, an Ice Beetle whose hide is covered in a layer of ice that absorbs all damage until you successfully deal fire damage to it and melt off the icy coating and then becomes a fairly easy to dispatch monster.

If you wanted to make it more complex, removing its ice armor doesn't actually allow it to be damaged directly, but its now unstable enough that you can knock it prone by various means and when it is prone it exposes a vulnerable point that can be targeted (until it regains its feet).

Thus, defeating the beast requires doing enough fire damage to crack its outer ice shell, then coordinating trip attacks so that the rest of the party can hit the vulnerable point.

You could still involve actual checks in there; actually hitting the target to deal fire damage (and how much fire damage it takes) and perhaps having to keep re-applying fire damage to keep it from regrowing the icy shell... then checks to trip the beast and/or keep it prone... finally attack rolls against the vulnerable point while it is prone; but the idea would be that even a really good roll would only advance you one stage in defeating the opponent.

Yes, that sounds EXACTLY like a video game, because that's what that particular example is based on, but if you're looking to keep a fight from being ended quite so easily, at least its not "no matter what you do, the monster drops after X rounds."

Yeah it's not impossible to develop the idea into more deliberately cinematic combats. The issue arises when there's *one* way to beat an enemy, in that case. I believe it was Paul Czege that said something to the effect of "The person that thinks of the puzzle shouldn't think of the solution."

The reasoning being that, if you start deciding the outcomes for the characters, and the place they need to be, and what the emotional resonance of that is going to be, you're not playing a game with your friends anymore. You're telling a story to them about characters they made, and occasionally letting them decide on something trivial. Maybe you let the dice decide how that "unimportant" goblin dies, who cares right? But DRACULA, oh man DRACULA, they gotta care about him. They've got to have the CINEMATIC SHOWDOWN with that guy! It wouldn't be THEMATICALLY APPROPRIATE for them to kill him by lighting him on fire with military oil or dropping a statue on his head; naw, there's got to be a THRILLING FINAL STRUGGLE where they've got to NEARLY MEET THEIR MAKER then have a  NARROW BUT CONCLUSIVE VICTORY.

Nobody does that shit with monopoly; sure, it would be rad to organically have a cool thing happen at the table, like rolling 12-12-11 and nimbly dancing around huge motel-bearing properties to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. But if you just, decided that would happen? It's hollow; it's just a story about a cool game, not an actually cool game.

This is why the rash of NAT 20 LOL memes and fake stories are grating; people telling a story about how a game they don't play doesn't work, and we're all supposed to lol and like and share because LOLO HE ROLLED BLUFF WITH HIS BEAR SO THEY THINK HE'S A PEOPLE SO RANDOM LOLOL god kill me.

We remember dropping a statue on dracula because it actually happened at the table. It's satisfying to us as challenge-seeking gamers to solve the "dracula puzzle" in a way that relied on our cunning, creativity and actual real luck. This is why I roll the foe's attack dice out where players can see them: there's genuine tension because their characters are in real danger. They can really lose, so victory is actually earned in the real world. You decide that behind and a screen and the whole thing's a hollow sham.

So, you absolutely can develop narrative mechanics that preserve and encourage this; hell, you don't even have to do that, you can just write traditional rules and get the same result. But it won't turn out the same way every time, and this is a good thing, a vital and needed thing for a game to be a genuine and satisfying experience. Don't lose sight of that crucial element when you're pondering design.
Joel T. Clark: Proprietor of the Mushroom Press, Member of the Five Emperors
Buy Lone Wolf Fists! https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/416442/Tian-Shang-Lone-Wolf-Fists

Willie the Duck

#33
January 24, 2019, 09:01:44 AM
Quote from: Razor 007;1072373Not always.  I love the random outcomes generated by rolling dice.  I just want the big cahunas, to play out as big cahunas, and not be a let down.  If the grand finale has a few PCs making death saves, that's exciting; but I don't necessarily want to create a TPK either.

It sounds like you have conflicting desires about what you want from the game. It certainly isn't just you, as Azraele points out, we all would like the climax of the adventure to be super dramatic. It just is one of those things that loses its punch if it is forced (to say nothing of the lack of agency the players have once you start predetermining the outcomes, much less how the outcomes come about).

I think you would probably achieve your goals better by simply making sure that the unimportant fights are genuinely X% of the climax fight in terms of difficulty, and the important (mini-boss, as it were) fights be Y% difficulty. That way you may still run into the boss being taken out in a round because your PCs got creative (while they almost dies to a few goblins in the woods earlier because they or the dice had a bad day), but the predicted outcome is X

Steven Mitchell

#34
January 24, 2019, 10:05:12 AM
Quote from: Azraele;1072392...

We remember dropping a statue on dracula because it actually happened at the table. It's satisfying to us as challenge-seeking gamers to solve the "dracula puzzle" in a way that relied on our cunning, creativity and actual real luck. This is why I roll the foe's attack dice out where players can see them: there's genuine tension because their characters are in real danger. They can really lose, so victory is actually earned in the real world. You decide that behind and a screen and the whole thing's a hollow sham.

So, you absolutely can develop narrative mechanics that preserve and encourage this; hell, you don't even have to do that, you can just write traditional rules and get the same result. But it won't turn out the same way every time, and this is a good thing, a vital and needed thing for a game to be a genuine and satisfying experience. Don't lose sight of that crucial element when you're pondering design.

Yes.  I think a better starting point for a traditional game than trying to institutionalize the "boss fight" is to do exactly the opposite.  Don't put all the eggs in one basket.  The big bad is not a person but an organization, or a rival adventuring party, or a loose coalition of monsters.  Their lieutenants and troops aren't merely mooks.  Given that, the top guys don't necessarily need to be quite as tough.  Make at least some of the opposition moderately intelligent or cunning, and this is even more true.

More often than not, a set up like that will play out as something within shouting distance of a traditional story structure.  When it doesn't, it will still usually be interesting, and probably even more memorable.  The very best games I have had were all the exceptions, where earlier conflicts went bad for the players, the tension was up, and surviving to the end--even when the leader types weren't all that tough--was a tension-filled session ending in sweaty relief.  In one game I played at a convention, the GM had the "big bad" as the second fight, and the first fight was tough.  The race to the end was tense, because the whole party was depleted.

Yeah, keep doing that, you are going to have the occasional dud.  That's the time for the players to up their roleplaying a little, let the food and drink flow, and enjoy the catharsis of a walk in the park.

S'mon

#35
January 24, 2019, 01:54:21 PM
Quote from: Willie the Duck;1072420Dracula should have imps, and hunchbacks, and wolves, and killer bats, and maybe even some misinformed villagers with torches and pitchforks (who the PCs would rather not have to kill) who've been lead to believe that the PCs are the bad guys, etc. etc. etc.

In the original he had a bunch of Gypsies! :eek:

Tod13

#36
January 25, 2019, 08:45:38 AM
Quote from: Chris24601;1072376
The funny thing is that even when "hit points" are used, the amount of damage it takes to drop a critter generally works out to "about three 'vulnerability cycles' worth of hits." And it has become recursive back to RPGs where hit point values for opponents are often about equal to three hits from an at-level PC.


This makes sense. I actually aim for 1.5 hits for "level appropriate" monsters in our home brew. This shortens combats, especially with multiple opponents, while still keeping things interesting, at least for my players.

Quote from: Chris24601;1072376
What might work better in line with the OP's original suggestion would be what I've heard terms "puzzle monsters." A puzzle monster is one where its essentially invulnerable to damage unless you work out the puzzle. Say for example, an Ice Beetle whose hide is covered in a layer of ice that absorbs all damage until you successfully deal fire damage to it and melt off the icy coating and then becomes a fairly easy to dispatch monster.


For my group, this is way to much focus on combat. A more interesting problem for them is "The entrance to the holy cavern is guarded by an Ice Beetle considered holy by the townsfolk whose village surrounds the entrance. The Ice Beetle is known to be immune to charm, poison, sleep and similar potions and spells". Now, you have to figure out how to get in either by stealth, trickery, or otherwise convincing the townsfolk to let you in. (Knowing my group, they would feed half the townsfolk a feast with a sleeping potion and convert the other half to a different religion.)

Charon's Little Helper

#37
January 25, 2019, 07:48:55 PM
Quote from: Chris24601;1072376What might work better in line with the OP's original suggestion would be what I've heard terms "puzzle monsters." A puzzle monster is one where its essentially invulnerable to damage unless you work out the puzzle. Say for example, an Ice Beetle whose hide is covered in a layer of ice that absorbs all damage until you successfully deal fire damage to it and melt off the icy coating and then becomes a fairly easy to dispatch monster.

Wasn't there actually quite a bit of that in D&D to start? Trolls keep regenerating until fire/acid. You need to use bludgeoning weapons on puddings or they'll keep multiplying. etc.

Zalman

#38
January 28, 2019, 06:00:16 PM
Quote from: Azraele;1072392Yeah it's not impossible to develop the idea into more deliberately cinematic combats.

Sure, because changing hit points to number of hits isn't, as has been noted, much of a change at all. But all that's a far cry from the OP, which proposed that an enemy last a specific number of rounds, and that that DM decides how that death occurs at the end of the given time frame.

I guess your point is that the OPs desires might be satisfied in a different way. Which I'd agree with.
Old School? Back in my day we just called it "School."

rawma

#39
January 28, 2019, 10:13:47 PM
Quote from: Chris24601;1072256No. I use systems where both sides are robust enough that it takes more than just a few lucky rolls to end a combat against a "Boss."

Legendary saves (essentially, bosses who can choose to make a small number of saving throws they would otherwise fail) are kind of necessary, if there are any save-or-die effects (although that's more an unlucky roll ending a combat abruptly). Later editions of D&D seem to have removed most of those. You can arrange to slow down combat even for the most combat oriented large party by using various distractions (illusion or simulacrum to take some of the initial attacks, for example).

My biggest objection to the original idea is that it ignores player decisions; either to come up with a clever plan that causes a lot of damage to a monster, or to decide to use more resources, or just better than average tactics. I don't think it's the worst thing to scale up an opponent's hit points because you know the party in your game will deal a lot more damage than their level indicates, especially when you're running a module.

Daztur

#40
January 28, 2019, 11:51:55 PM
Quote from: Azraele;1072392Yeah it's not impossible to develop the idea into more deliberately cinematic combats. The issue arises when there's *one* way to beat an enemy, in that case. I believe it was Paul Czege that said something to the effect of "The person that thinks of the puzzle shouldn't think of the solution."

The reasoning being that, if you start deciding the outcomes for the characters, and the place they need to be, and what the emotional resonance of that is going to be, you're not playing a game with your friends anymore. You're telling a story to them about characters they made, and occasionally letting them decide on something trivial. Maybe you let the dice decide how that "unimportant" goblin dies, who cares right? But DRACULA, oh man DRACULA, they gotta care about him. They've got to have the CINEMATIC SHOWDOWN with that guy! It wouldn't be THEMATICALLY APPROPRIATE for them to kill him by lighting him on fire with military oil or dropping a statue on his head; naw, there's got to be a THRILLING FINAL STRUGGLE where they've got to NEARLY MEET THEIR MAKER then have a  NARROW BUT CONCLUSIVE VICTORY.

Nobody does that shit with monopoly; sure, it would be rad to organically have a cool thing happen at the table, like rolling 12-12-11 and nimbly dancing around huge motel-bearing properties to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. But if you just, decided that would happen? It's hollow; it's just a story about a cool game, not an actually cool game.

This is why the rash of NAT 20 LOL memes and fake stories are grating; people telling a story about how a game they don't play doesn't work, and we're all supposed to lol and like and share because LOLO HE ROLLED BLUFF WITH HIS BEAR SO THEY THINK HE'S A PEOPLE SO RANDOM LOLOL god kill me.

We remember dropping a statue on dracula because it actually happened at the table. It's satisfying to us as challenge-seeking gamers to solve the "dracula puzzle" in a way that relied on our cunning, creativity and actual real luck. This is why I roll the foe's attack dice out where players can see them: there's genuine tension because their characters are in real danger. They can really lose, so victory is actually earned in the real world. You decide that behind and a screen and the whole thing's a hollow sham.

So, you absolutely can develop narrative mechanics that preserve and encourage this; hell, you don't even have to do that, you can just write traditional rules and get the same result. But it won't turn out the same way every time, and this is a good thing, a vital and needed thing for a game to be a genuine and satisfying experience. Don't lose sight of that crucial element when you're pondering design.

This. This. This. This.

 This is also why puzzle dungeons drive me nuts since often force the players into finding  the one solution you thought of instead of being creative.

In any case they'll probably remember dropping a statue on Dracula a lot more than winning against him in a fair fight due to luck and good tactical decision making. Players love cheating, so set up a game that's all about them cheating. Have rules for their abilities that are clear enough to be able to extrapolate off label uses of them, make it so that the players will be stomped to paste in a fair fight and make sure that the enemies are distracted/dumb/overconfident enough that the PCs have a chance for their cheats to work. And for fuck's sake don't abstract things enough so that their cheating doesn't matter.

cranebump

#41
January 29, 2019, 10:13:08 AM
An obvious solution is to play systems that depend on other things besides HP's.
"When devils will the blackest sins put on, they do suggest at first with heavenly shows..."

Opaopajr

#42
January 29, 2019, 12:01:01 PM
It's all just "HP" again anway, regardless the different thresholds, degrees, & modifiers. An abstraction still counted is a counted abstraction. A=A. I'd give up the dream of novelty already, the wheel has been made, and accept it as a conceit with optional taste dials that have mostly been explored.

Your tastes currently wants a dial to compare party compositions for threshold success -- which makes it hard for 3+ combatants, let alone shifting alliances mid-combat -- but OK, you do you until you're happy. :) What does this DO that makes you happy? Answer that and we can get closer to your ideal so as to suspend your disbelief.
Just make your fuckin\' guy and roll the dice, you pricks. Focus on what\'s interesting, not what gives you the biggest randomly generated virtual penis.  -- J Arcane
 
You know, people keep comparing non-TSR D&D to deck-building in Magic: the Gathering. But maybe it\'s more like Katamari Damacy. You keep sticking shit on your characters until they are big enough to be a star.
-- talysman

Razor 007

#43
January 29, 2019, 01:13:37 PM
I don't mind if the PC's make Swiss cheese of some encounters.  That's awesome.  I also think that it's perfectly reasonable for a true big bad to last a few rounds; unless the party manages to pummel the big bad in an exceptional manner, early on.  The big bad goes down when the DM calls it.
I need you to roll a perception check.....

jhkim

#44
January 29, 2019, 04:14:03 PM
Razor 007 -

On the one hand, I agree that not having hit points can still involve plenty of the unexpected. From playing and GMing Amber Diceless, I often find that there are surprises that come up all the time. The surprises come mainly from player actions and choices, not die rolls. In Amber, monsters don't necessarily go down on some arbitrary schedule or based on dramatic timing. The GM is taking into account things like what tactics and tricks the player is using, what weapons are available, and making a reasoned decision based on those. The same could be done in D&D.

If you're removing hit points, though, it seems to me that most of the D&D mechanics there are becoming superfluous. Much of the choice of tactics and spells have to do with trading off between damage, to-hit, and defense. If the result of each hit isn't numerical, what is the point of all of the other numbers?

I think removing hit points makes sense for going to more of a system like Amber Diceless. Having no hit points in D&D seems like an awkward medium.
Print
Go Up Pages 1 2 3 4 5
User actions