A generic HP system for Runequest?

[kintire]

I also think it's the likelihood of death that creates "heroic" characters - not statistical unlikelihood. Of course that's just a question of gaming style and philosophy.

Actually, the likelihood of death does not create heroic characters. It creats corpses.

Why not run adventures where the characters are shopkeepers or have lots of laundry to do? They can then have normal hit points and needn't worry about violent death because their city is surrounded by walls and the town watch will be there to bail them out.

Because, as you very well know, that would be deeply boring.

Surely the 'danger' is the point?

It is, but the question is "how much?". Developing heroic characters requires that the characters survive long enough to develop heroism. If you are running a combat heavy game, they may be taking 10-20 attacks per session. If there is a significant chance of death as a result of each attack, the character's career will be short: one session for a 10% chance, ten sessions for a 1%. If you are going to have a heroic campaign with characters that last a reasonable amount of time the chance of death to a given attack needs to be actually quite low, and ensuring that is a legitimate concern.

 

[Deleriad]

I also think it's the likelihood of death that creates "heroic" characters - not statistical unlikelihood. Of course that's just a question of gaming style and philosophy.

Actually, the likelihood of death does not create heroic characters. It creats corpses.

Yes and no. People have a habit of thinking the following:
A heroic character faces death despite low odds of survival. An unheroic character only fights when there is almost no chance of dying.

In old school role-playing most characters die but some survive the odds and become heroic. So, for some people, if a character faces a combat that is highly unlikely to kill it, that character is not doing something heroic.

Developing heroic characters requires that the characters survive long enough to develop heroism. If you are running a combat heavy game, they may be taking 10-20 attacks per session. If there is a significant chance of death as a result of each attack, the character's career will be short: one session for a 10% chance, ten sessions for a 1%. If you are going to have a heroic campaign with characters that last a reasonable amount of time the chance of death to a given attack needs to be actually quite low, and ensuring that is a legitimate concern.

So what we have, basically, is a deep-seated debate about what "heroic" actually means. In storytelling games, the characters are unlikely to die due to game rules but may die due to demands of the story. In simulationist games, most characters die early due to dice rolls but some survive to become heroes.

MRQ is a hybrid game where PCs can die due to dice rolls but the PCs have some storytelling protection through Hero Points. MRQ is also slightly less lethal than other versions of RQ so PCs won't need protection quite so often. D&D has moved from old-school random selection - a hero is simply someone who survived - to a more storytelling ethos.

I guess what the OP's players like is watching the characters grow and develop and they don't particularly want to have to roll-up new characters every few sessions because they got "unlucky" with some dice rolls. Complaining that the OP's players don't like what you like is just One True Wayism.

Personally, if they were my players I would say let's just do RQ as something different and maybe run 3 or so linked scenarios. I would give them extra Hero Points and I would go a little easy on the players. Basically I would use Hero Points as my players survival mechanism, not extra Hit Points. No guarantee they'll like it but worth a try.

 

[Mongoose Pete]

Actually, the likelihood of death does not create heroic characters. It creats corpses.

Actually, some of the greatest heroes of history were awarded the honour posthumously...

 

[kintire]

So what we have, basically, is a deep-seated debate about what "heroic" actually means. In storytelling games, the characters are unlikely to die due to game rules but may die due to demands of the story. In simulationist games, most characters die early due to dice rolls but some survive to become heroes.

Actually, what we have seems more like someone mentioning that the system is a little too lethal for the style of game he wants to run, and being met with a grognard telling him that if he doesn't want the players to die all the time they should take up laundry... which is not very helpful.

And also, we have several people who seem to insist on polarising everything. You have lethal combats... or you do laundry. You are a "stortyteller" who never kills PCs at all, or you are a "simulationist" who kills 90% of all PCs created. What happened to fine tuning?

Lets be clear about this. One system does not fit all. For a given level of risk over the course of a character's career, or some subset of it, a very different level of risk per fight can be needed. A character that gets into a fight every three or four sessions will be at far less risk than a character who gets into three or four fights per session, given the same combat system. Therefore, if you have a combat heavy game, you need a less lethal combat system to produce the same career risk. This is not about not liking danger, or being a simulationist: its about fitting the system to your gaming style.

 

[kintire]

Actually, some of the greatest heroes of history were awarded the honour posthumously...

But not after a three minute career...

 

[duncan_disorderly]

Actually, what we have seems more like someone mentioning that the system is a little too lethal for the style of game he wants to run, and being met with a grognard telling him that if he doesn't want the players to die all the time they should take up laundry... which is not very helpful.

I thought we had someone who wanted to remove (one of the) Systems USP(s).

If you want a game where PC's have buckets of HP and get more HP as they become more experienced then the game you want is not RQ.

You can easily increase the starting HP, but any attempt to allow "levelling up" of HP is going to be an awkward kludge 'cos RQ doen't really have any concept of "levels"

 

[Deleriad]

Lets be clear about this. One system does not fit all. For a given level of risk over the course of a character's career, or some subset of it, a very different level of risk per fight can be needed. A character that gets into a fight every three or four sessions will be at far less risk than a character who gets into three or four fights per session, given the same combat system. Therefore, if you have a combat heavy game, you need a less lethal combat system to produce the same career risk. This is not about not liking danger, or being a simulationist: its about fitting the system to your gaming style.

I agree entirely with you. Old school style random and frequent death in RPGs is perfectly fun for those who enjoy it but it's certainly not the only way to play nor should it be.

I personally think the best way to fine tune the risk level in RQ is through the use of Hero Points. Basically, give out more Hero Points and allow them to be used to avoid serious wounds as well as major wounds. Again, personally, when switching to a different system I think it's best to try to use the in-system resources rather than modifying a part of the system before you have played it.

That said, if they want more hit points and they want hit points to be able to increase over time then they should just go with it. In the end it's all about what is most fun for the people playing it.

 

[Mongoose Pete]

Actually, some of the greatest heroes of history were awarded the honour posthumously...

But not after a three minute career...

Oh? How about a newly conscripted cavalryman assigned to the 13th Light Dragoons at the Battle of Balaclava, his baptism of fire... Or perhaps a national guardsman named Pvt Young called up for duty in the Pacific, whom during his first ever military engagement, sacrificed his life to save the rest of his platoon...

 

[kintire]

If you want a game where PC's have buckets of HP and get more HP as they become more experienced then the game you want is not RQ.

Yes. And?

If you like all the other parts of the system, a game which is not RQ but is very very like it in most respects seems a suitable goal.

You can easily increase the starting HP, but any attempt to allow "levelling up" of HP is going to be an awkward kludge 'cos RQ doen't really have any concept of "levels"

Except that you can easily attach it to a skill, like resilience. That works fine

Oh? How about a newly conscripted cavalryman assigned to the 13th Light Dragoons at the Battle of Balaclava, his baptism of fire... Or perhaps a national guardsman named Pvt Young called up for duty in the Pacific, whom during his first ever military engagement, sacrificed his life to save the rest of his platoon...

What about them? Neither of these people is the hero of a story, tale, film or any similar thing. I am puzzled at how they apply to anything we are discussing. They were doubtless both heroes in the sense that they displayed heroic courage in the face of death, but that is not the same as being a heroic character in a fictional story. Whether its fair or not, characters who get three minutes of air time, or screen time, or game time, are not the heroes. Heroes can die of course, but only after enough time that people care.

 

[howardfanatic]

Heroism isn't really the issue. In myth and tale heroes come in all sizes, from Superman/Heracles down to Sherlock Holmes/Hamlet. Being a hero is not neccessarily predicated upon having tremendous power or on being able to endure great battle. The superhero and the common man can both be heroes in the right setting.
The issue is simply desired game play. It is a game. It is played for recreation. Some people like games that are slanted towards the hero because they enjoy other elements of the game. They are simply not interested in that much realism. There's not a thing wrong with that. Some people play video games with cheat codes and have fun doing so. They're not wrong because they enjoy a particular style of play.
Other folks like the fact that their character could die at any turn, just like they like their video games Resident Evil style- hards as Hela and almost as lethal. There's nothing wrong with that either.
Personally, I like a little of both, depending on the genre.

 

[Hervé]

_________________
Make Conan Runequest NOW!!

Man, I just love your signature! :wink:

 

[Da Boss]

Other folks like the fact that their character could die at any turn, just like they like their video games Resident Evil style- hards as Hela and almost as lethal. There's nothing wrong with that either.
Personally, I like a little of both, depending on the genre.

you could use the Extra Life feat from Macho Women with Guns and make it a heroic ability :wink:

 

[howardfanatic]

Thanks for liking my signature. I hope if they see it enough, they will do it.

Speaking of Tarzan, Burroughs' Mar would be a very cool MRQ project.

 

[Cleombrotus]

Actually, what we have seems more like someone mentioning that the system is a little too lethal for the style of game he wants to run, and being met with a grognard telling him that if he doesn't want the players to die all the time they should take up laundry... which is not very helpful.

There are plenty of ways to make runequest less lethal without this illusory HP increase. At the end of the day surely any player is going to realise that an arbitrary increase in what is essentially an arbitrary figure is simply there to make life less dangerous, and

as you very well know

that leads to boredom.

If you are running a combat heavy game, give the characters good armour. There are plenty of story based reasons why they could be well kitted out as starting characters.

In my experience of RQ there is a kind of "threshold of survivability" that characters reach where they are more likely to survive a combat than not. Getting there is a major part of the fun of Runequest, and removing that pleasure is simply bypassing that aspect of the game.

If you want hard characters, start them with higher skills (parry and dodge, I suppose) - don't change the mechanics - especially for ones that are illusions. Perhaps it's a cultural thing - characters of this culture start with Dodge (75%), Parry (75%) and Craft (Laundry) (75%).

 

[kintire]

There are plenty of ways to make runequest less lethal without this illusory HP increase. At the end of the day surely any player is going to realise that an arbitrary increase in what is essentially an arbitrary figure is simply there to make life less dangerous,

On a per attack basis... but not necessarily overall, because combats will be more frequent and tougher.

as you very well know
that leads to boredom.

Rowlocks it does. Some of the most interesting and exciting games I have played have been almost completely without any personal danger at all.

If you are running a combat heavy game, give the characters good armour. There are plenty of story based reasons why they could be well kitted out as starting characters.

And illusory increases in the arbitrary AP figure is better, because...?

Actually they are worse, because they manadate one specific style of fighting, heavy armour, whereas the HP version maintains variability.

In my experience of RQ there is a kind of "threshold of survivability" that characters reach where they are more likely to survive a combat than not. Getting there is a major part of the fun of Runequest, and removing that pleasure is simply bypassing that aspect of the game

Well, my experience is that getting to that point is a pointless pain in the backside. Why is your experiance better than mine, or the OP's players?

If you want hard characters, start them with higher skills (parry and dodge, I suppose) - don't change the mechanics

Why not?

especially for ones that are illusions.

They are ALL illusions. Stats, skill percentages, hit points... the lot. Roleplaying games are all about creating illusions that are enough like (a)reality to engage the players: no part of any system is an actual accurate model of how things really work. The number of HPS people have in RQ is a decsion based on a certain sort of assumption about how a campaign should run: yours, it appears. If your assumption is different, you need to tweak the numbers. And there is nothing wrong with that.

If the assumptions are sufficiently different, you should use a different system designed with those assumptions in mind: but there's a different thread for that one!

 

[RosenMcStern]

I think the discussion is straying a bit off the path of reality, besides the fact that we have already replied to the OP.

Fixed HPs are there because they enforce realism, not playability. Increasing HPs grants playability, but not realism. If the fixed HP method is complemented with an enjoyable method of keeping PCs alive if they don't do anything stupid, then you have both realism and playability, something that you cannot achieve with variable HPs.

 

[Rurik]

If you want hard characters, start them with higher skills (parry and dodge, I suppose)

Overlooked in this whole thread is perhaps the most significant 'skill' in MRQ that makes a character/npc/monter 'tough' - Resilience.

A high Resilence skill will keep someone alive even after taking massive amounts of damage. Not to rule out other mods that might increase HP or whatnot, but starting characters with a High Resilience will go a long way towards preventing character death.

In the original printings of MRQ Resilience was treated as any other skill and not capped at CONx5 - going back to this method will increase the Heroic feel of the game.