RPG Talk

HP creep, I like that term. It pins down exactly a problem I've come to realize with Star Wars Saga Edition as well. The PCs are now over level 10 and have scores of hit points which has bogged the game down. I don't think I'll ever GM another HP or level based combat system again. I like how Green Ronin's Mutants and Masterminds system handles combat damage. One simple D20 roll to determine a damage effect and that's it.

I've played D&D where HP is more abstracted and actual numbers aren't used. You still roll them as the DM and keep track, but you don't give players numbers, you explain whatever it is they are doing or having done to them. Like you just lost a few HP so you got slashed a little on the arm or oh, you just got stabbed right in the guts. Keeps it less mathy and more story vibing along with letting you fudge here and there very easily.

Green Lantern wrote: HP creep, I like that term. It pins down exactly a problem I've come to realize with Star Wars Saga Edition as well. The PCs are now over level 10 and have scores of hit points which has bogged the game down. I don't think I'll ever GM another HP or level based combat system again. I like how Green Ronin's Mutants and Masterminds system handles combat damage. One simple D20 roll to determine a damage effect and that's it.

Not all games use hit points the same was as D&D. In Call of Cthulhu (or Elric or Runequest or other games originally from Chaosium), your starting hit points range from 3-18 points, based on an average of your Constitution and Size attributes. I let Call of Cthulhu players potentially pick up one more hit point if Size goes up due to heavy eating, but otherwise, their maximum hit points never change. Combat is lethal and often undesirable unless there is something more crucial than minor loot at stake.

If I recall correctly from browsing through the A Game of Thrones RPG, HP was pretty low and didn't really advance. This reflects the brutal nature of combat in the books and short lifespans of its characters.

On HP: D&D and the D20 system is the rare offender in that. Warhammer, BRP, White Wolf, Chill, most every other system on the planet keeps HP low. I think even Dragon Warriors adds 1 per level. Just 1. And leves are kind of hard to come by.

HAve you looked at some of the stuff going on in D&D 4e adventures for the 20+ level crowd? Encounters with stuff with hundreds and 1000-2000 HP.

Savage Worlds doesn't add any HP either. Everyone has three at pretty much all times. There may be an Edge that adds one, but I don't recall.

When we first started playing D&D in the seventies the DM did and had everything. No character sheets for the players, no hit points, they didn't even witness die rolls. Players were all about the story and the character and the DM abstracted 100% of the technicalities away from behind his box lids stood on-end to block what he was doing. That was storytelling.

The early books never described who did what, and since the one guy was the storyteller it just seemed to make sense to us that he did everything, especially since he's the one who knew the rules the best. The players kept some notes on a piece of paper about what spells they had memorized or what they thought of the magic sword they had just picked up. We were very surprised when we played with other people and the players got to actually do things.

I personally love the rising HP totals and attack capabilities. In my opinion that growing level of ruggedness was the one thing that D&D had that none of its competitors at the time (Gamma World, Traveler, etc.,) did that seemed critically important to retaining interest in the character. Those extra HPs mattered. They were this heavenly manna that let you go after bigger more dangerous critters, take bigger risks.

S.

Obligatory Disclaimer: Do whatever your group thinks is fun. If that involves people fudging rules, die rolls, stats, etc., then go for it.

The responses here seem to revolve around a few assumptions. One is that I'm playing an RPG that is combat-heavy and, in theory, a balanced skirmish simulator. Another is that failure is not fun, or only occasionally fun. There seems to be a factor of "the GM knows what is best for the group and is responsible for making it happen."

For the first, I'd rather just play a board game. But if we're playing D&D, and everyone at the table looks like they're getting bored, then I'll ask if we want to cut the combat short. Maybe assume that everyone loses a certain percentage of their HP; whatever we work out.

For the second, that is a little more group dependent. I like games where either outcome is fun for me, even if it's not fun for the characters. If only one outcome is fun then I'd rather we decide that's the thing that happens, rather than pretend that rolling dice matters because we're only going to allow one outcome.

And for the third, well, I reject that entirely. The main reason why I play RPGs is to participate in an improvised group story. The whole GM-as-auteur thing, where he present his amazing world/story and leads the others through it, is not anything interesting to me. I don't think the GM knows best what's fun for me. If I GM, I don't think I know best what is fun for the others.

Sag asks, if I drop the ball, do I let it stay dropped and let other people not have fun? Loter and Chapel make similar overtures, saying that sometimes you have to break rules in order to tell the best story. I agree, but this isn't relevant.

For you guys, it seems that fun in an RPG is primarily about telling a good story, hopefully one that has a lot of improvisation and unpredictable outcomes. But if the unpredictable outcome is not a "good story" (by the GM's definition) then the improvisation is chucked out.

For me, the priority is reversed. I would rather participate in an improvised story that is mostly good, than a good story that is mostly improvised. I am happy to accept that the story might not be as good as possible, in return for nobody at the table really knowing what is going to happen.

If my main goal is to experience a good story, I'd rather read a book or watch a movie. Even an average book or movie is probably going to have a better story than anything created at your typical table of RPGers.

It's not so much about telling a good story as it is about weaving a good story with the contribution of the players. This isn't exclusionary, in fact quite the opposite. The players need to be empowered by their actions, either to their benefit or detriment. The DM's job is to react. If the characters decide to shelve their swords and become farmers the storyline is going to be pretty drab, but so be it.

Originally the subject I was speaking to was more about adjusting monster stats to match the party prior to encounter. If you were anticipating five 8th level characters and there's four 5th level you're going to nuke the party if you run the material as printed. That doesn't give the players the opportunity to contribute to the narrative.

S.

I think you're looking at it in a far more binary sense than I meant it (generally). I'm all for "bad" and unexpected outcomes, and I won't fudge stuff to prevent someone from failing specifically to just prevent them from failing (or for that matter, succeeding).

However, the instances I'm talking about are more in the cases where something really cool or fun has the potential to happen and I'd like to see how it plays out. The example I gave was someone trying an exciting combat idea; swing from a vine to knock a bad guy over a cliff lets say. You roll and miss by a point off of what I had decided the roll ought to be. It's not off enough for me to say oh, well you got em but you also fucked yourself and go tumbling after (an exciting result), but it's also really kind of anti climactic to just miss so I either give them a little stated bonus (if I told them the DC before hand) or I just pretend they hit what I was looking for.

I certainly don't do it every time, but if the PCs are trying fun out of the box stuff, I want to generate a decent amount of fun out of the box results, not just a bunch of minor failures. This is all a direct result of what the players are creating and in fact is empowering them to tell the story they want even more. If they just naturally failed a shit ton of weirdo stuff due to a string of bad luck with the dice, it'd end up MORE railroad-y and DMs master plan in action if I didn't fudge a little.