Why Do We Still Have Hit Points? Options

[Epicedion]

Having played some more modern RPGs recently, most notably using the Fate system, I'm starting to wonder why Shadowrun still sticks with a "hit points" style system rather than moving to something that's more descriptive and less prone to numbers insanity.

Does the system really need to keep fine track of damage to get its point across? Instead of taking 4 damage or 1 damage, couldn't you just take a "gunshot" or a "flesh wound" instead? Shadowrun's got enough quirks that getting fiddly with damage numbers seems unproductive at best ("you deal 18P to the target and it explodes" / "no no, I got 7 hits, so I deal 20P") and unthematic at worst ("the Streetline Special is worthless because it does 6P instead of 8P, which is why everyone uses it even though it can't kill a twig").

When you get into SR4 and on through SR5, this tends to make combat... I don't know, kind of bland? I shoot / I hit / he resists some / he takes 3 damage. Lots of pluses and minuses and rolling. Rinse, repeat. It really shows its blandness in Matrix combat, where pretty much all of the environmental nuances are stripped away and you're just left with two code spheres battering each other in open space.

What can be done with this? One of the biggest problems I have with getting people interested in playing Shadowrun is the chunkiness of the system, and I'm wondering if it's getting on toward time to push it into the modern era.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Never really had issues with the Health Boxes of Shadowrun, myself (though various iterations of Damage Coding have been an issue for me - SR1, SR2, and SR3 I am looking at you), though I see where you are coming from. I enjoy/love FATE system as well. Problem with the Fate System is that it greatly generisizes (word I just made up) such things. You will lose a great deal of granularity that the Shadowrun system provides, which I greatly enjoy. Both systems have their strengths and weaknesses... Personally, the granularity of Shadowrun (and the Gun Porn) is a Strength, in my opinion. And you lose that in FATE.

[nezumi]

Like Tymeaus said. They're different games for different people. I enjoy reading FATE books, and would probably enjoy it from a strictly RP point of view. But it sucks at anything approaching realistic modeling. It's a 'narrative' system not a 'modeling' system.

I do agree that the SR4 rinse and repeat gets a little rough. This is why I couldn't transition over from SR3. In SR3, the pools were part of the game, and that whole gambling and planning component that came with it was part of the fun. I don't play D&D for the same reason. If you're going to do tactical modeling with lots of rolls, you need to at least make the rolls interesting, with lots of options for player choice and story-telling.

[Epicedion]

I still think you could maintain a simulation feel without sticking to a flat damage model. I'm not saying that the Fate system is a good model for Shadowrun, but it got me thinking in this direction.

For example, the difference in handguns is a good feature to zoom in on. What makes a Predator better than a Fichetti Security? Well, it's the damage, because raw damage output is really the only thing that matters. Trying to add complexity to that (Accuracy, for example) only serves to bog down the system.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

For example, the difference in handguns is a good feature to zoom in on. What makes a Predator better than a Fichetti Security? Well, it's the damage, because raw damage output is really the only thing that matters. Trying to add complexity to that (Accuracy, for example) only serves to bog down the system.

Sometimes a gun is just a gun, and the personal preference of a user has absolutely nothing to do with its capabilities or features. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Epicedion]

Sometimes a gun is just a gun, and the personal preference of a user has absolutely nothing to do with its capabilities or features. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

I agree, though Shadowrun doesn't seem to care about the differences that actually matter. You can't, for example, put 5 .50AE pistol rounds on target as quickly as you can 5 9mm rounds. Since the only difference between the guns is a flat damage code, the heavier gun always looks more appealing. You get into the same issue between SMGs and assault rifles and MGs.

[Machiavelli]

Besides, Hold-outs definitely have their uses. You can carry them with lesser problems in social situations you normally wouldn´t be able to bring along a heavy pistol. They are smaller and in the correct hands they can also be quite deadly. Of course they are the wrong choice if you want to meet in a barrens bar, but that is another point.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

I agree, though Shadowrun doesn't seem to care about the differences that actually matter. You can't, for example, put 5 .50AE pistol rounds on target as quickly as you can 5 9mm rounds. Since the only difference between the guns is a flat damage code, the heavier gun always looks more appealing. You get into the same issue between SMGs and assault rifles and MGs.

Indeed... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[binarywraith]

We have hit points as an abstraction of damage.

Shadowrun uses an abstract and very, very general damage model, suited to an action movie like combat experience. This is why little details in gun difference don't matter enough to be modeled in their damage code. The damage isn't granular enough for that.

[Epicedion]

We have hit points as an abstraction of damage.

Shadowrun uses an abstract and very, very general damage model, suited to an action movie like combat experience. This is why little details in gun difference don't matter enough to be modeled in their damage code. The damage isn't granular enough for that.

It's not really suited to an action movie style. An action movie style would involve getting "a few scratches" or "just a flesh wound" or "a sucking chest wound." Not incremental damage.

[Warlordtheft]

Always thought using a hit location might help:

Prior to determining damage level, roll 2D6 for location:

2: Head/neck
3-4:Arm (roll again, 1-3 Left, 4-6 right)
5-7:Upper Chest
8-9:Lower abdomen
10-11: Leg (roll again, 1-3 Left, 4-6 right)
12:Head/neck

But then this mean all the armor codes need to be rewritten:
Could go something like this for an armored jacket:

H(ead):0 C(hest&torso):8 L(imbs):5

And the helmet could be:
H:+10 C:+0 L:+0

Then the question becomes can you sacrifice hits to select location? Say use 2 net hits to adjust location roll by 1.


This system would by no means be perfect, but might help. I'd revert to the following descriptors (modify for creatures with bodies greater than 4):
1-3 damage: A light wound, such as a bullet bouncing off the skull causing bleeding, taking off an ear, hitting a limb but not damaging any tendons, with minor damage to muscle or bone, hitting the torso or chest might meant a complete blow through without hitting a major organ, possibly some muscle or bone damage (like a cracked rib).
4-6 damage: Moderate damage for the head would be fracturing the skull, jaw or a wound that seriously impairs your hearing or sight. Hitting a limb and damaging nerves and tendons, in the case of a torso or chest wound this might mean minor organ damage, like your left kidney taking a hit (assuming you haven't sold your right).
7-9: Serious wound to the head might mean taking damage to brain or artery, to a limb it might mean a limb got mangled (to the point it probably needs to be replaces), and for the torso, major organ damage.

A singe shot that kills for the head means brain splatter, to a limb means blown off and you're in shock, and chest or torso means the lung or heart have been hit.

[Jack VII]

Honestly, the older editions worked on a somewhat more storytelling principle. Rather than doing an obvious numerical value, weapons did Light, Moderate, Serious, etc. wounds. Granted, the wounds, when using the damage track, equated to 1, 3, 6, etc. damage. But they could still be easily described as flesh wounds, gunshot, or however the GM wants to describe them. You can really do the same thing in the current game with a decent imagination and storytelling chops.

[Epicedion]

Honestly, the older editions worked on a somewhat more storytelling principle. Rather than doing an obvious numerical value, weapons did Light, Moderate, Serious, etc. wounds. Granted, the wounds, when using the damage track, equated to 1, 3, 6, etc. damage. But they could still be easily described as flesh wounds, gunshot, or however the GM wants to describe them. You can really do the same thing in the current game with a decent imagination and storytelling chops.

I disagree with the idea that it only takes "decent imagination." That's just a patch put over the gamey hit point system. You can do the same thing with D&D.

[Jack VII]

I disagree with the idea that it only takes "decent imagination." That's just a patch put over the gamey hit point system. You can do the same thing with D&D.

That's fine, there are certainly dicelight and diceless storytelling systems that could be easily converted for Shadowrun. Shadowrun, for five editions, has been a heavily dice-based game.

[Epicedion]

That's fine, there are certainly dicelight and diceless storytelling systems that could be easily converted for Shadowrun. Shadowrun, for five editions, has been a heavily dice-based game.

Well a better simulation wouldn't say: you've been winged 10 times for 1 point of damage each, so I guess now you've been incapacitated. Dice are fine, it's just the damage model is weird as hell, and very flat. And it's not very simulation-oriented. It's a lot of crunch and grind for a low payout.

[Jack VII]

"Your luck holds as the ganger's shot only grazes your arm. While only a minor wound, the combined shock from blood loss and bruising from the last several flesh wounds you suffered bring you to your knees. Your vision slowly tunnels and fades to black."

It might not be for everyone, but I guess it has worked for me across most of the RPGs I have played.

[binarywraith]

It's not really suited to an action movie style. An action movie style would involve getting "a few scratches" or "just a flesh wound" or "a sucking chest wound." Not incremental damage.

Not a Die Hard fan, are you? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/cool.gif)

[Epicedion]

"Your luck holds as the ganger's shot only grazes your arm. While only a minor wound, the combined shock from blood loss and bruising from the last several flesh wounds you suffered bring you to your knees. Your vision slowly tunnels and fades to black."

It might not be for everyone, but I guess it has worked for me across most of the RPGs I have played.

Sure, but you never break a leg, or pass out from blood loss, or take a hard knock and get dizzy for a second. You know, in the system. Hit points are directly contrary to that notion. The example of Fate sort of lets the player decide what negative consequences they take. A simulationist game like Shadowrun could do something mechanically interesting instead. But the more games I play, the more I see hit points stand in the way of interesting combat.

[Epicedion]

Not a Die Hard fan, are you? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/cool.gif)

"Sorry John, the explosion combined with crashing through the window does 2 more points of Stun. You pass out."

[Epicedion]

Here's a brief example of a dice-oriented system that would provide a better simulation:

Damage comes in by applying a specific consequence. Let's say that one possible consequence of getting solidly hit with a baseball bat is "broken leg" which comes with some movement penalties and some overall pain/distraction penalty to actions. You're then required to make some test like Body + Willpower so that you don't go into shock.

Let's say that you get shot, but your armor vest absorbs most of the impact (reducing it into the Stun range, normally). You might take some consequence like "Winded" which doesn't last long, but gives you some penalty to actions, and getting hit like that multiple times in short order might accumulate enough penalties to the Body+Willpower roll that you fail it and pass out.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Sure, but you never break a leg, or pass out from blood loss, or take a hard knock and get dizzy for a second. You know, in the system. Hit points are directly contrary to that notion. The example of Fate sort of lets the player decide what negative consequences they take. A simulationist game like Shadowrun could do something mechanically interesting instead. But the more games I play, the more I see hit points stand in the way of interesting combat.

You do know that there are options for that in SR4A, right?

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Here's a brief example of a dice-oriented system that would provide a better simulation:

Damage comes in by applying a specific consequence. Let's say that one possible consequence of getting solidly hit with a baseball bat is "broken leg" which comes with some movement penalties and some overall pain/distraction penalty to actions. You're then required to make some test like Body + Willpower so that you don't go into shock.

Let's say that you get shot, but your armor vest absorbs most of the impact (reducing it into the Stun range, normally). You might take some consequence like "Winded" which doesn't last long, but gives you some penalty to actions, and getting hit like that multiple times in short order might accumulate enough penalties to the Body+Willpower roll that you fail it and pass out.

From my experience, more often than not, if you are not willing to completely detail all possible interactions of damage and consequence (and annotate them in writing), you will get disagreement from participants in how those interactions should/would work.. And you are apparently making even more rolls to adjudicate effects (as evidenced by your first example)
And this leads to a much more complex set of interactions than the simple mechanic that already exists in Shadowrun.

There are benefits and drawbacks to each system, to be sure, but more often than not, simplicity wins over more simulationist approaches.

[nezumi]

Sure, but you never break a leg, or pass out from blood loss, or take a hard knock and get dizzy for a second. You know, in the system. Hit points are directly contrary to that notion. The example of Fate sort of lets the player decide what negative consequences they take. A simulationist game like Shadowrun could do something mechanically interesting instead. But the more games I play, the more I see hit points stand in the way of interesting combat.

I thought that was EXACTLY what wound penalties are.

To use your example; you get hit with a baseball bat and breaks something. You can't move as fast or as well. You suffer a -1 to all actions. (A lenient GM would use Called Shot rules.) You get hit by a gel round and get winded. While that's in effect, you suffer a -1 to all actions, but it doesn't last long. However, accumulate enough and you might pass out.

There are two things you've added which aren't covered here;

1) Shock. This has been brought up a few times on this forum. Someone even made up rules for them. However, the overall response was 'this is terrible'. No one wants to play a character who might pass out or wet himself on the first shot. It's just not fun, and the first rule of the game is having fun.

2) Area-specific damage. Most people agree being able to have area-specific damage would be fun, but they don't want to pay the book-keeping cost. I've played CP2020 which does have area-specific damage. It's frequently silly, and always slow. So while I don't disagree with you, you need to recognize what you're giving up. The easy solution here is to say 'hey, the GM's job is to take narrative control and describe things as appropriate'. Unfortunately, no rule book will ever be able to properly document how to do that.

[Epicedion]

From my experience, more often than not, if you are not willing to completely detail all possible interactions of damage and consequence (and annotate them in writing), you will get disagreement from participants in how those interactions should/would work.. And you are apparently making even more rolls to adjudicate effects (as evidenced by your first example)
And this leads to a much more complex set of interactions than the simple mechanic that already exists in Shadowrun.

There are benefits and drawbacks to each system, to be sure, but more often than not, simplicity wins over more simulationist approaches.

I didn't provide a mechanic, just an idea that could be made into a mechanic. Taking a cue from Fate, you could even go so far as to allow players to decide how their characters get injured -- you roll your attack/defense/soak dice and then get to apply the "injured" or "crippled" effect somewhere on the body with associated penalties. Or maybe you just take another "flesh wound" and roll on.

Or a simple die roll (Edge to choose, yourself?).

I simply find the combat system to devolve rapidly into "I shoot at the dude" "you hit, the dude shoots back" because the amount of thought that needs to go into it is fairly low, and the system doesn't pull any weight on explaining what's happening. There's only so much creative juice you can pour into describing a gunfight, especially the ones where it's two groups behind cover firing lots of shots at each other.

[Epicedion]

I thought that was EXACTLY what wound penalties are.

To use your example; you get hit with a baseball bat and breaks something. You can't move as fast or as well. You suffer a -1 to all actions. (A lenient GM would use Called Shot rules.) You get hit by a gel round and get winded. While that's in effect, you suffer a -1 to all actions, but it doesn't last long. However, accumulate enough and you might pass out.

There are two things you've added which aren't covered here;

1) Shock. This has been brought up a few times on this forum. Someone even made up rules for them. However, the overall response was 'this is terrible'. No one wants to play a character who might pass out or wet himself on the first shot. It's just not fun, and the first rule of the game is having fun.

2) Area-specific damage. Most people agree being able to have area-specific damage would be fun, but they don't want to pay the book-keeping cost. I've played CP2020 which does have area-specific damage. It's frequently silly, and always slow. So while I don't disagree with you, you need to recognize what you're giving up. The easy solution here is to say 'hey, the GM's job is to take narrative control and describe things as appropriate'. Unfortunately, no rule book will ever be able to properly document how to do that.

Not exactly. It's a step up from D&D where you take no penalties while you go from full health to no health, but the system can't handle you spraining your ankle.

Incapacitation was earlier described as "shock" upthread here, by someone. You could put in an incapacitation mechanic that doesn't rely on simple accrual of damage, but rather one that sets a threshold to test against.

Locational damage is tricky, but I think there are ways to do it without resorting to bookkeeping nightmares like locational armor or multi-tree charts. You could enlist player decision, roll a couple dice, or draw cards from a deck. It doesn't have to take a long time.