Yes, such system would be more useful in more action-oriented games, where you have active control over the character''s moves, and have a more complex fighting system (like in Die by the Sword). Also good for a game with a more action style gameplay, where you walk around, climb stuff, and can face various kinds of real-time physical threats (jumping from a somewhat high window would hurt the clumsy character''s legs, and he would walk funny and slower for a while).

On the usual "click and watch" scenario from most PC RPGs, it would just make the battle more random-ish. But could make the act of watching a bit more interesting, at least, assuming you have good visuals going on.

A random number (with some bias, depending on the attack) would define where the attack is going to hit. Another random number (biased based on character stats) try to counter that and dodge the attack, or at least change the body part that is hit (the player sucessfully defends his head, but hurts his arm, as example).

The system is in relation to an action rpg...I shuld have clarified that.

Therefore, a player is somewhat responsible for the evasion of attacks, though their statistics affect these things also. I''m aiming for a battle system that lies somewhere in between Morrowind (click click stats based combat) and Blade of Darkness (combo based action game)

Moo.

i don''t see why everyone complains that such a system would be "too complex, with nearly the same results"... isn''t that what computers are for? it''s not like somebody''s going to have to roll an additional 300 dice and then perform calculations with those values...

Then there''s my system, which I''ll be using in an RPG unless one of you convinces me that it could be made better. Characters get 100 HP each, which do not increase with level at all, and start with 5 Dodge Points, which regenerate at a rate of one per round and increase with levels. Characters are always hit by attacks, unless they are wearing armor or tap the dodge button as attacked, in which case they have a chance to avoid all damage. They can make 1 point, 3 point, or 5 point dodges, and the closer to the enemy''s attack you tap the button, the less likely he is to hit. Personally, I think my system rules.

Oh yeah, and your maximum DP temporarily drop by 1% for every point of HP damage you take. Thus, if a blow gets through, your dodging ability is somewhat weakened.

"Ph''nglui mglw''nafh Cthulhu R''lyeh wgah''nagl fhtagn!" - mad cultist, in passing

Duran, if dodging is handled separately, what is the HP? Wouldn''t it be better to keep the dodge system, but integrate it with a wound system, a stamina system, and a blood loss system? That way you could have local cripples and gradual stamina degeneration, with impressive and convincing action penalties.

I always thought that complex hit detection systems were better suited to action games, specifically with firearms. I liked the system in a Quake III mod called Urban Terror, which is very similar to Action Quake. Leg shots make you limp, and arm shots wreck your accuracy, and blood loss is a factor, and you can bandage, which is a corny element, but fun. I''d never call the system realistic, but it offered penalties for getting hurt, and forced you to reconsider your options. Running from a group of enemies, you might take a hit in the leg. Now you''ll never get away, so you have to find a parked car or a corner to make into your Alamo. Neat stuff.

I think the papercut analogy used earlier is completely flawed. Someone pointed out that if a papercut does 1hp, and you have 8hp, then it''s unrealistic to assume that 8 papercuts is going to kill you. I agree with that premise, but who is to say that a papercut is going to do 1hp of damage. You have to separate combat and circumstances for the HP system to hold together, and you''re combining them. Some games ignore this completely.

I don''t think a papercut should do 1hp of damage. Nor do I think it shouldn''t affect you at all. You should have structures built into your RPG to handle different ''afflictions'' that a player could have. These could be beneficial or not. If you get a papercut on your hand, you should get an affliction that affects your ability to do damage since it hurts when you swing a sword. But you shouldn''t lose hp over it. If you do, that better be a damned big papercut.

Second, the whole stable boy example seems totally out of whack. You''re asleep. Anyone with a knife should be able to kill a sleeping person, unless the guy trying it is hopped up on something or completely useless. Again, this falls back to circumstances. Although, this specific example brings you back to game design. Should you really be able to kill the players character with a kife in the middle of the night? I can''t think of many players who''d want to play an RPG where the DM decides to arbitrarily axe their character that they just spend 20 hours building up.

Third, the knight example. Pure combat. However you describe it, be it hit points, or damage to body parts isn''t going to matter to the player so much as the Fun Factor(TM) does. It''s a simulation so that the player doesn''t have to roll dice.

Fourth, the badass swordsmen. Both have lots of HP for a reason. They''re damned good. As characters in an HP system progress, they get lots more HP. But their weapons do not increase nearly as much. Why? Because games where you die from one or two hits are not any fun. HP takes master swordsmen into account by implying that HP is an accumulation of body fatigue and damage, not just the raw ability to suck up damage. If one swordsman wins, and the other dies, if the winner then faces off against a small troop of goblins, they have a decent chance of winning. Why? Because he''s wounded and fatigued. Some games take this into account by splitting fatigue and damage, assigning penalties if you drop to critical fatigue levels.

Fifth, the superhero jumping off the 200 foot cliff to avoid something. Circumstances. He should have a 95% chance of dying, and if he doesn''t, should lose all but a few HP. Period.

Sixth, the hero being ambushed by 500 spear chuckers. Of course he''s going to get hit. I think this is a combination of circumstances and combat. On one hand, he''s got armor, on the other, there are 500 spears. I''d rule in favor of circumstances and kill him.

ElAntonius, I see your point about the HP system being flawed, but if used in its pure state, you''re correct. It is flawed. It needs to be governed by external influences, and a lot of games simply don''t build that into them.

My thought about your proposed system is that it isn''t any better or worse. There are still things you don''t take into account, for example. If I know that taking out your sword arm will render your attacks useless, why wouldn''t I? What about your left leg so you can''t run away or dodge? And if you know that I keep going for your sword arm, what stops you from changing your stance so that I can''d hit it as easily?

I think the whole issue is a matter of perspective and specific implementation. There are some great games out there that really aren''t too realistic. I don''t know as realism is the point in an RPG though.

I like OctDev''s example with the stable boy. I don''t see any problem with having this painful kind of realism as long as it is made perfectly clear to any player of the game that this sort of event can happen. It''s like how we have ratings on games and movies so that a player or viewer can know what to expect. There should be a disclaimer on the box with the phrase, "This game is so realistic, its frustrating!"

Heh.

First, The papercut analogy isn''t to be taken literally.

Second, I think the knife-in-eye example is meant to illustrate the fact that there is noway - in HP systems today - that a boy could deal 500 damage to a level 40 knight, because even IF the damage was multiplied with 10 for hitting the head, and multiplied with 10 because it was a surprise attack, no little boy in an RPG would deal more than 3 points of damage => 300 points of damage which would be completely pointless.

If the example seems dumb, imagine YOU being a level 1 fighter, and you wanted to kill the merchant next door because he has a lot of goodies with him, but to do that and survive, you need to kill his level 50 bodyguard first. Which simply isn''t possible in a HP system, unless the programmer specifically scripts that you can do these kinds of things - but what if he doesn''t think like you do, what if he never has the idea "maybe the player would wanna be able to rob this guy from the very beginning".

In a realistic system, however, if you DID get into the room, and DID manage to sneak up to the L50 fighter, then killing him wouldn''t be a problem, if the game is designed correctly.



Third and fourth, are you SURE it wouldn''t be fun to play a game where there were realistic damages - even in a medieval / fantasy setting?

Look at movies. Do you ever see the hero charge into the crowd of enemies, only to stand infront of one of them, both exchanging lethal blows until the evil guard (or whatever it was dies), and at the same time there are 5 other guards chopping at the hero, hitting him every so often, but the hero kills them off, one at a time. And after the fight, he drinks 3 red poitions labeled Health Potion.


Wouldn''t it be cooler if, in the game, you ordered your character (think Diablo) to charge into the enemies.

He swings at the first goblin, who he hits and is smashed to pieces. He continues forward, two goblins try to strike him from both sides, BUT INSTEAD OF THEM HITTING so he loses one percent of his HP, your hero kills one while he avoids the second blow, then spins around and kills the third one. Then, sadly, one of the goblin spearmen hurls a spear at his head, and instead of taking away 5 out of his 100 HP, it simply kills him because it doesn''t hit his helmet.


Fifth. Are you serious? Do you really think that a character (not equipped with a magical armor of anti-gravity or being a magic user himself) should be able to fall 200 feet and survive? (200 feet= 60 meters)
Well, true, I guess it''s possible, but should he be able to just stand up, walk to the nearest town and buy some healing potions?
I''m thinking his legs shuold be broken...


Sixth.
So, your saying that the computer shouldn''t roll all the dice, it should just think "hmm, there are 500 of those. He probably won''t make it, so he dies."


I agree that there are several fun RPGs that aren''t very realistic, and they probably wouldn''t have been fun if they were, because a realistic damage system changes basically EVERYTHING about what an RPG should play like.



"If I know that taking out your sword arm will render your attacks useless, why wouldn''t I?"

If you''re talking MMORPG, then ignore what I have said. I haven''t played and MMORPGs, so my comments should only be applied to singleplayer games (and coop, and perhaps some kind of DM or TM)

"Kaka e gott" - Me

Okay, people are getting the wrong idea of what I''m trying to do.

This is for a SINGLE PLAYER ACTION RPG WITH COMBAT IN A SIMILAR VEIN TO BLADE OF DARKNESS WITH MORE STATISTICS INVOLVED. m3d10n got that.

Besides, I see no problem at all with shifting stance to avoid blows or targeting areas to disable players.

I thought I already clarified that I''m not aiming for 100% realistic, just a system that I believe applies better to the cinematic effect of an rpg.

Moreover, the analogy that a hp system can replicate the effects of what I''m talking about is flawed. I can describe the same event in two languages, but that does not make the languages the same. In the same vein, I CAN describe the wounds system in terms of hps, but I CHOOSE to describe it in wounds because I believe that the concept of HPs is inherently flawed.

Srekel got it right, the papercut analogy wasn''t meant to be literal. It was meant to illustrate how something that damage almost never is scaled properly in a traditional hp system, leading to an EXTREMELY weak extrapolation that higher hps represent a variety of factors. I don''t buy that: I believe there is a better way.

I WANT the player to be able to die in a few blows, and conversely, be extremely deadly. I''m aiming for the master swordsman effect: dodging blows while summarily dealing deadly ones. Being an action RPG, the last thing I want to encourage is the Morrowind-esque trading blows.

Oh and, again, Srekel saw what I''m getting at: with a little bit of tactical thought, a player should be able to defeat a much higher level NPC, just as a player with an uber character can be slain if they are not attentive.

I don''t see why this system is any more or less complex than a traditional hp system: where one would determine damage, they simply determine whether an attack cause a wound or not. The wound states are generic: there are only 6 or so ''zones'' that are attackable, and each of these carry generic effects for being wounded. Never did I say you could "slice off a troll''s left nipple"

Moo.

quote: Original post by Estok
This thread is very interesting. I agree that death blows shouldn''t be random, they should be like headshots in counter-strike. [...]

Just a minor nitpick, but headshots in counter-strike ARE random. If not due to the funky hitbox placing (all models have the same hitboxs, but the models themselves are different sizes and shapes so the image of the head and the head hitbox aren''t aligned entirely correctly for some models), then due to the fact that the guns don''t always shoot perfectly straight where the crosshairs are.